Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES

Feedingstuffs (Roumania)

Major Tufton Beamish: asked the Minister of Food if he will make a full statement on the further efforts of the Government to purchase a part of the exportable surplus of livestock feeding-stuffs from the Roumanian Government, explaining the reasons for the continued delays; and stating what success has now attended these efforts.

The Minister of Food (Mr. Strachey): We have offered to negotiate for all the foodstuffs, including cereals, which the Roumanians can let us have. The Roumanian authorities have informed us, however, that they cannot spare any cereals until they know the prospects for the coming harvest. But we have bought some sunflower oil and some maize starch and are waiting their reply to our inquiry about any other foods available for immediate delivery.

Major Beamish: What has happened to the large exportable surplus of feeding-stuffs known to be available last Autumn?

Mr. Strachey: I suppose it is a matter for the Roumanian Government to judge their exportable surplus.

Major Beamish: Is the Minister aware that last Autumn the Roumanian Government were willing to export a large part of that surplus to this country? Surely it was due to the inefficiency of the right hon. Gentleman's Department that they did not do that?

Mr. Strachey: I am aware of nothing of the sort.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: Has any considerable quantity of cereals gone from Roumania to any other country, or has the right hon. Gentleman no information about Roumanian trade?

Mr. Strachey: I have considerable information about Roumanian trade, but, as far as I am aware, there has not been any appreciable export of cereals from Roumania at the present time, but that does not mean that there will not be some export of cereals from Roumania, or that we are not interested in the matter.

Mr. Turton: Was this not known to the Ministry of Food in November, yet now it is April, and nothing has been done?

Mr. Strachey: We protracted the negotiations because we were interested in the possibilities, but the Roumanian Government have just come to the conclusion that they do not want to export cereals.

Swedes (Cancelled Contracts, Scotland)

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: asked the Minister of Food what quantity of last year's crop of swedes did his Department contract to buy from Scottish farmers, and at what price per ton; why were these contracts subsequently cancelled; and what is the total cost involved in respect of these cancellations so far as Scotland is concerned.

Mr. Strachey: About 7,000 tons of swedes were contracted for in Scotland at £5 10s. per ton ex-farm. They were bought as part of an emergency reserve. This, fortunately, was not needed; but the contracts have not been cancelled, except at the growers' option. We are giving growers the chance of being released from their contracts, or buying back the swedes before we resell them ourselves. Final returns for all sales have not yet been received, so I cannot yet say what the cost of this "insurance" measure will be.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Is it likely to be £2 10s. a ton as a free gift to the farmers, allowing them to keep the swedes, for that is my information?

Mr. Strachey: No, Sir, I could not say what the final financial outcome will be, but there will certainly be some cost—and we always knew there would be, if the swedes were not needed, as I am very glad to say they were not.

Captain John Crowder: Were these meant to take the place of potatoes? Did the right hon. Gentleman think the people of this country would buy swedes instead of potatoes?

Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir, if there were not any potatoes.

Staff, U.S.A.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: asked the Minister of Food what is the total aggregate of salaries and allowances paid to members of his staff employed in the United States, including those in the British Supply Office, for the seven months ending 31st March, 1948; what reduction was made during that period of staff so employed; and how many are there now.

Mr. Strachey: The total salaries and allowances paid to the Ministry of Food staff employed in the United States during the seven months ending 31st March, 1948, amounted to £36,215. The staff has been reduced by 28 during the period: on 31st March, 1948, the number employed was 42. During the seven months in question the British Supply Office was the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply. I understand however that the total salaries paid to the British Supply Office staff during this period amounted to approximately £170,000. The staff was reduced by 104, 300 being employed on 31st March, 1948.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Since there has been no purchase of food from the United States since last August, why is it necessary to keep £36,000 worth of Ministry of Food officials—40 or so—hanging about there doing nothing?

Mr. Strachey: One reason is that we hope that the period in which there will be no food purchases from the United States may come to an end. The other reason is that there have been many important duties there, for example, the negotiation of the International Wheat Agreement.

Street Trading Offences, Glasgow

Mrs. Jean Mann: asked the Minister of Food whether, in view of the repeated convictions for trading offences of barrow-stance holders in Glasgow, he will take steps to deprive those convicted of supplies in cases where the fruit is imported

on the Ministry's account, and in other cases to deprive the holder of his licence, following one or more such convictions.

Mr. Strachey: Whenever a trader is convicted of a food offence we consider whether he should still be regarded as a suitable link in the chain of distribution, and if not, we revoke any Ministry licence or allocation he may have.

Mrs. Mann: Can my right hon. Friend explain why I had a reply stating that there were 160 convictions last year? Does that mean that there are 160 people who in spite of these convictions are still allowed to fleece the women of Glasgow?

Mr. Strachey: No licence is required for trading in fruit and vegetables, so that there can be no question of revoking a licence. We do in many cases revoke an allocation for repeated and grave offences.

Mrs. Mann: Will my right hon. Friend say whether a banana is considered to be fruit and onions are considered to be vegetables, because there were convictions for improper prices in respect of both?

Mr. Strachey: My hon. Friend's allocation of categories is correct, but I repeat that no licence is required to trade in those commodities. What we do is to revoke an allocation of imported fruit.

Duplicate Ration Books

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: asked the Minister of Food what is the number of duplicate ration books issued to replace lost books during the ration year 1946–47.

Mr. Strachey: During the rationing year 1946 to 1947 some 932,000 food ration books were issued to replace books reported lost, stolen or destroyed.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Since in the previous year the figure was about 673,000, is it not a pretty clear indication that there is a serious leakage, presumably into the black market?

Mr. Strachey: My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary held a careful inquiry into this in the Autumn, and she was satisfied that there was no evidence that it represented a black market leakage.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: How many of these 900,000 lost books were found and were returned to the Department?

Mr. Strachey: I should have to have notice of that question.

Mr. Reid: The right hon. Gentleman will get it.

Imported Carrots

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Minister of Food why he is importing carrots from Italy and France, when acres of Fen carrots could not be sold, and Yorkshire carrots are being fed to cattle.

Mr. Strachey: I am not importing carrots; those now coming in are early carrots bought by private traders under licence, and do not compete with the old crop. There is a guaranteed market for home-grown maincrop carrots under which we bought all carrots offered by growers before 29th February: only those which have deteriorated are being sold for stockfeeding.

Sir W. Smithers: Is the Minister aware that a prominent distributor in London had a telegram from Yorkshire the other day asking "Can you sell some car rots?" Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the rules of Order prevent me from saying what I think of him and his methods?

Flour (Price)

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Minister of Food if he will state the price paid for flour by the Co-operative societies, and the price paid by other bakers.

Mr. Strachey: Forty shillings per 280 lb. in both cases.

Sir W. Smithers: Is the Minister aware that there is a widespread feeling among the private bakers in the country that the Co-operative societies are getting some priority or some preference, and will he assure the House that that is not the case?

Mr. Strachey: Certainly.

Meat (Quality)

Mr. Gibson: asked the Minister of Food whether he is aware that there are many complaints about the quality of meat which is being served in the London area; whether he will take steps to ensure that only meat of good quality is distributed on the ration; and whether he will cause a special inquiry to be made into

the distribution of unsatisfactory and unpalatable meat in the South London area.

Mr. Strachey: All the meat distributed on the ration is of types regularly sold for domestic consumption before the war. Complaints are made from time to time by those who do not always receive the kind which they prefer. South London is receiving its fair share of all types of meat.

Mr. Gibson: Will my right hon. Friend have another look at this if I send him some further correspondence which I have received recently?

Mr. Strachey: Certainly.

Mr. Snadden: Is the Minister aware that complaints with regard to inferior meat are not confined to the London area? What happens to all the fat cattle that are sent weekly for sale from Scotland? Where do they go?

Mr. Strachey: The effect of a fixed price for meat is that poorer customers get their fair share of the better class meat, while the richer customers have to take some of the inferior meat.

Mr. Royle: Will my right hon. Friend accept my assurance that a lot of this meat which is being served on the ration —and I know something about it—is absolutely unsuitable and should be used for manufacturing purposes? Will my right hon. Friend take steps to tighten up the grading system in regard to meat?

Mr. Strachey: I am afraid that if much of the meat which is used for the ration was used for manufacturing purposes the supplies today are such that the ration would have to be reduced.

Air-Commodore Harvey: asked the Minister of Food why 147 lb. of hind quarter beef was delivered to Mr. J. Leonard, a butcher, of Broken Cross, Macclesfield, in such a condition that it was unfit to be served to customers; and what steps is he taking to prevent repetition of this incident.

Mr. Strachey: This hind quarter was. examined by two of our trade experts on the day on which Mr. Leonard complained, which was the fifth day after the meat was delivered to him. I am satisfied, on their report, that it was of good quality but needed trimming. Had Mr. Leonard


followed the usual practice in such cases there would have been no grounds for complaint.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Does the Minister realise that Mr. Leonard has made numerous complaints in the past, and has been told to "get on with it"? Is he further aware that the meat in question, which was expected to give 170 rations, could only provide 100? Many cases are occurring all over the country, and will the right hon. Gentleman look into it and do something about it?

Mr. Strachey: I have looked into the case. The two experts who examined the case were practical butchers who were perfectly satisfied that Mr. Leonard had had a fair allocation.

Mr. Henry White: asked the Minister of Food in how many weeks during the last 12 his Department received complaints from butchers in the Clowne Rural District, maintaining that the meat allocated to them was of inferior quality, and only suitable for manufacturing purposes; whether he is satisfied that, during this period, the quality of the 10d. value of the meat ration was equal to the allocation elsewhere; and what action does he propose to take to see that registrations are met with wholesome supplies to the full ration value.

Mr. Strachey: We had complaints during two weeks of this period, but I am satisfied that the quality issued was similar to that issued elsewhere, and that it was wholesome and sufficient to meet the full value of the ration.

Mr. White: Is the Minister aware that again, only a fortnight ago, complaints were general in this particular area about the low standard and inferior quality of the meat supply?

Mr. Strachey: That may be so.

Tomatoes (Price Control)

Mr. Fernyhough: asked the Minister of Food if he will control immediately the price of imported tomatoes.

Mr. Strachey: Price control on all tomatoes both home-grown and imported, will be re-imposed this season but I am not at present in a position to give full particulars.

Mr. Fernyhough: Is my right hon. Friend aware that since this control was taken off tomatoes have risen 50 to 60 per cent.? Does he not agree that if this is a case of setting the people free, the sooner the shackles are reimposed the better for the community?

Mr. Strachey: While not disagreeing with my hon. Friend's general statement, I must point out that there has been no price control on tomatoes this year.

Catering Establishments (Racial Discrimination)

Mr. John Lewis: asked the Minister of Food if he will now make a statement on his investigation into the refusal on the part of Rules to supply a meal to a coloured person; and what steps he has taken.

Mr. Driberg: asked the Minister of Food if he will make a statement on the result of his investigations into the recent instance of racial discriminations at Rules Restaurant.

Mr. Strachey: I have now received a letter from the managing director of Rules Restaurant expressing his regret for what happened and giving an unqualified undertaking to prevent it happening again. I am satisfied that the very serious character of the incident has been brought home to the managing director, and that he now understands the grave injury which is done to the interests of the British Commonwealth by any form of racial discrimination.

Extra Rations

Mr. Baker White: asked the Minister of Food whether in view of the improvement in stocks, he will grant an additional ration of sugar to farm workers in order to sustain their energy through the longest working days of the farming year.

Mr. Strachey: We have already made special allowances of rationed foods, including sugar, for farm workers when they are working long hours on certain occupations. I am afraid that any further allowances to these workers is not possible.

Mr. Baker White: Will the Minister keep in mind the fact that farm workers are not getting enough energy-making foods, and that in the coming months they will have to work very long hours indeed?

Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir. There will, of course, be the usual harvest and other heavy work allowances.

Mr. Spence: Would the Minister not consider increasing the sugar ration in view of the recent cut in cheese? Is he aware that they only get two-fifths of an ounce of cheese?

Mr. Strachey: No, Sir, because the cheese ration to farm workers has not been reduced from the level of 12 ounces.

Mr. Odey: Would the Minister bear in mind in this connection that in the majority of cases these agricultural workers have no access to works canteens?

Mr. Strachey: Yes, that is why they receive differential rations.

Mr. Hardy: asked the Minister of Food if he is aware of the peculiar hours of duty performed by municipal and district midwives, especially during the night-time; and if he will consider allowing them a little more tea, sugar and milk as compensation for the arduous duties and long distances they have to travel during the time they are on duty.

Mr. Strachey: Whilst appreciating the valuable and arduous service performed by midwives, I regret we could not base differential rationing or extra allowances on the number of hours of duty during the day or night.

Mr. Hardy: Does the Minister appreciate that many of these midwives, who are called out to perform their duties, are, in many instances, retained at the house for hours on end, and have to take tea from time to time from people who can ill afford it from their ration? Would the Minister state if he is prepared to look into this question, more particularly in the case of midwives working in rural districts, who have to travel many hours at a time in performing their duties?

Mr. Strachey: I quite agree that there is an excellent case in regard to the midwife, but, unfortunately, if we began differential rationing in this category it would be quite impossible to refuse it to other categories.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Is not the attitude of the Government in this connection that of "Penny wise, pound foolish"?

Sugar Rationing

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: asked the Minister of Food whether he will now consider abandoning sugar rationing.

Mr. Strachey: Unfortunately the supplies which we can afford to buy are not nearly enough to enable us to do that.

Colonel Hutchison: Will the Minister examine what happened in Switzerland, where, as a result of the abandonment of sugar rationing, consumption has, in fact, gone down? Would not that apply to this country?

Mr. Strachey: I am afraid not. It would only apply if the price was sharply increased.

Mr. Turton: Does the Minister maintain that we have failed to buy Empire sugar production?

Mr. Strachey: No, we have bought every ton of sterling sugar that we can possibly buy, and a good deal of dollar sugar as well.

Canned Foods

Mr. Baker White: asked the Minister of Food why it is proposed to link the trade in points goods to consumer registration.

Mr. Strachey: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) on 12th April.

Sweets Ration (Temporary Increase)

Mr. Keeling: asked the Minister of Food whether he can now announce any temporary increase in the ration of sweets.

Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir. I have now completed the inquiries into the level of stocks held by the various sections of the trade, and as a result, I am able to increase the ration from 3 oz. to 4 oz. per week for the next rationing period only, that is, for the four weeks beginning 25th April.

Mr. Keeling: Is the Minister aware that, owing to the delay in coming to this decision, some of the large quantities in stock have already become unfit for issue?

Mr. Strachey: No, Sir.

Herrings (Purchases)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Minister of Food what have been the quantities of herring bought from Scots fishermen and Norwegian fishermen since 1st January.

Mr. Strachey: In the period 1st January to 10th April, 1948, 22,000 tons of British-caught herrings were landed at Scottish ports, and 30,500 tons of Norwegian herrings were imported into the United Kingdom.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that a strong sense of grievance is felt by Scottish fishermen on this question? A lot of these fishermen are ex-Service men who have had to buy new boats, and cannot we do something more to encourage them?

Mr. Strachey: Why there should be a sense of grievance I cannot tell, because of that total of 22,000 tons only 300 tons were used for oil and meal and the whole of the rest were sold at the guaranteed price. Unless they object to the importing of Norwegian herrings, which we very much need, I can see no reason for the grievance.

Snoek

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Food if he can now state whether, as a result of the examination by his Department of the consignment of snoek, brought to this country in the ss. "Novelist" at the beginning of this year, this consignment has been released for retail sale.

Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir. We carefully examined this initial consignment and decided it was too salt. We shall use it for fish paste. The consignments now coming in are unsalted and will be suitable for retail sale. Some will be released on 23rd May.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how he reconciles that answer with the answer given in this House on 21st January, by his Parliamentary Secretary, that this consignment showed an improvement over its predecessors, and will he, therefore, tell the House whether it is his intention to pay the full contract price for this article, which he himself now admits is inferior?

Mr. Strachey: No, we do not intend to pay the full contract price for the consignment which was salty, and unfit for the retail trade.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Will it be called salmon and shrimp paste?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION

Vehicles and Rolling Stock

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will give a general direction to the Transport Commissioners that all vehicles, railway carriages and rolling stock shall be run under the name of the commission and not under the trade names of their former owners.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes): No, Sir.

Mr. Nicholson: Then are we to understand that the Commissioners will go on using the trade names of the previous owners?

Mr. Barnes: I could not anticipate what the Commissioners will do. I do not think this is a subject on which I should give a direction.

Mr. Nicholson: Is the Minister aware that strong feeling exists over the dishonesty of cashing in on the goodwill of private firms when no price is to be paid for that goodwill?

Hotels Executive

Mr. Marlowe: asked the Minister of Transport upon what date the appointment of Lord Inman as chairman of the Hotels Executive became effective for salary; why no other appointments have yet been made to this executive; and what functions it has performed to date.

Mr. Barnes: Lord Inman has been engaged in preliminary work relating to the Hotels Executive since early February. He has asked that no salary should be paid to him before the Executive is set up. The appointment of the remaining members of the Executive is now being considered and I hope to announce names shortly.

Mr. Marlowe: Has this gentleman any office or any staff yet? Is he doing anything?

Mr. Barnes: The facilities necessary for preliminary work are there.

Mr. Erroll: Where?

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF SUPPLY

Saunders Roe Flying Boat (Construction)

Air-Commodore Harvey: asked the Minister of Supply what progress has been made in building the Saunders Roe flying boat; and when does he expect this work to be completed.

The Minister of Supply (Mr. G. R. Strauss): Satisfactory progress has been maintained in the design and construction of the Saunders Roe civil transport flying boat. The completion of the three aircraft on order would take about three and a half years.

Air Commodore Harvey: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that it is not the intention to cut this programme but to proceed with it?

Mr. Strauss: The whole programme is under constant review. I can give no guarantee about it at all.

Air-Commodore Harvey: When the right hon. Gentleman says it will take three and a half years, why does he not inform the House if he is uncertain that these aircraft will be completed?

Mr. Strauss: Because the Question was not directed to that point, but to how long it would take.

Tin and Copper (Contract Prices)

Mr. Erroll: asked the Minister of Supply in view of the fact that he has announced the contract prices for tin but not for copper, what is his policy in regard to the publication of prices he pays for non-ferrous metals and other commodities.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: Tin is bought at a price fixed after discussion with representatives of the producers, who all get the same basic price, which can, therefore, he made public. Copper, lead, zinc and

chrome ore are bought under varying arrangements from a large number of industrial producing companies all over the world and the prices paid are the results of normal commercial bargaining. Aluminium is bought under contract from producers in this country, and Canada. All these prices must, therefore, be treated as confidential in the interests of both the producer and the Ministry.

Mr. Erroll: As the producers of tin are in the same category as the producers of other non-ferrous metals, why should they have publicity regarding prices and not the other trades?

Mr. Strauss: I think the answer explains that. Tin is bought from three groups of producers. The other metals are bought from small producers all over the world, at varying prices.

Mr. Stokes: When reference is made to the producers of tin, does the Minister mean the international tin cartel, or is that no longer in existence?

Mr. Strauss: No, Sir, I mean the producers in Malaya and Nigeria, and the Bolivian producers.

Mr. Stokes: Is the international tin cartel still consulted, or not?

Mr. Strauss: No.

Iron and Steel Industry (Schemes)

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: asked the Minister of Supply whether the plans submitted by the British Iron and Steel Federation and the Joint Iron Council for increased production of crude steel and foundry iron have been approved, and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: With the hon. and gallant Member's permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of the major schemes, already finally approved, which will contribute to the production of crude steel and foundry iron. Other schemes are still under consideration, but I can give no estimate of when approval will be given.

Following is the list:


Schemes contributing to the Production of Crude Steel and Foundry Pig Iron.


Schemes approved in detail.


Firm.
Location.
Scheme.


Steel Co. of Wales
Margam
Installation of ore unloading plant. Additions to coke ovens. Ore preparation plant and services. Rebuilding of two blast furnaces and new melting shop.


Richard Thomas &amp; Baldwins
Ebbw Vale
New coke oven battery. Additional open hearth steelmaking furnace.


Dorman Long &amp; Co. Ltd.
Middlesbrough
Ore unloading, crushing, screening and sintering plant on Teesside. Two new blast furnaces at Cleveland to replace obsolescent units. New steelmaking plant at Lackenby.


Consett Iron Co,
Consett
New coke oven battery. Provision of two modern blast furnaces to replace obsolescent units.


Skinningrove Iron Co.
Saltburn
Replacement of blast furnace by one modern unit. Reorganisation of steelmaking plant.


Colvilles
Clyde Ironworks
Additional coke ovens. Provision of third blast furnace.


Colvilles
Clydebridge
Replacement of steelmaking furnaces.


Colvilles
Dalzell
Conversion of furnaces to oil firing.


Stewarts &amp; Lloyds
Clydesdale
Reconstruction of melting shop.


United Steel Companies
Treeton
Replacement of coke oven battery.


John Baker &amp; Bessemer
Rotherham
Installation of new open hearth steelmaking furnace.


Park Gate Iron &amp; Steel Co., Ltd.
Rotherham
Mechanisation of equipment for charging blast furnaces.


John Summers &amp; Sons
Shotton
Erection of coke ovens and blast furnace. New melting shop.


Round Oak Steelworks
Brierley Hill
New melting shop.


Sheepbridge Coal &amp; Iron Co.
Chesterfield
Rebuilding of two blast furnaces. Installation of ore crushing, screening and sintering plant and gas cleaning plant.


Stewarts &amp; Lloyds
Corby
Provision of ore preparation plant. Increase in coke oven capacity. New open hearth melting shop.


United Steel Companies
Scunthorpe
New coke oven battery. Erection of two new blast furnaces to replace obsolescent units. New melting shop.


John Lysaght
Scunthorpe Works, Scunthorpe.
New coke oven battery. Provision of ore crushing plant and services. Modernisation of existing blast furnace and erection of modern blast furnace to replace obsolescent unit. Rebuilding and enlargement of steelmaking furnaces.


Richard Thomas &amp; Baldwins
Scunthorpe
New blast furnace to replace two obsolete units. Provision of ore handling plant and pig casting machines. Various other improvements.

Mr. Erroll: asked the Minister of Supply, how many schemes for the development of the industry have been examined and passed by the Iron and Steel Board; how many are at present under examination; how many are awaiting examination; and how many are expected to be submitted to the Board during the rest of the year.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: Five hundred and twenty-six schemes have been examined and passed by the Iron and Steel Board, 69 are under examination, and there is no scheme awaiting examination. It is expected that nine major schemes will be submitted during the rest of 1948, but the number of minor schemes cannot be estimated.

Mr. Erroll: As no more schemes are awaiting examination, can the Minister say why it has proved necessary to increase the staff of the Iron and Steel Board?

Mr. Strauss: That is an entirely different question. If the hon. Gentleman will put it down I will answer it. The work of the Iron and Steel Board goes far beyond the work indicated here.

German Scrap (Imports)

Air-Commodore Harvey: asked the Minister of Supply if he will make a statement regarding the prospects of obtaining scrap from Germany in the next few months.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: The Scrap Investigation Committee, which I appointed at the beginning of March, 1948, have submitted their preliminary report, and in the light of their recommendations measures are being taken to provide additional facilities for obtaining scrap from Germany. I hope that, as a result, we shall get increased tonnages of scrap from this source in 1948.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Will the right hon. Gentleman say if he is offering goods to the Germans which will be of use to them and will encourage them to let us have the scrap?

Mr. Strauss: What we are doing is to provide greater numbers of tractors and cranes and other equipment which will enable us to bring a greater quantity of scrap to this country.

Mr. Oliver Poole: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that currency reform is essential before he can expect much scrap from private concerns in Germany.

Mr. Strauss: Undoubtedly it would be a most important factor.

Atomic Energy (Research)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Minister of Supply how much money has been spent on research as to how atomic energy can be used for industrial purposes in times of peace as compared with the sum spent on the atomic bomb.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: It is not possible to make the comparison requested by my hon. Friend since almost all the effort

involved in the research programme is of common application to both the industrial and the military potentialities of atomic energy.

Mr. Hughes: Has the attention of my right hon. Friend been drawn to a statement by Professor Bernal that 50 per cent. of our scientists are now engaged on war work and that 66 per cent. of the money spent on research work is devoted to war purposes? Could he say anything about those figures?

Mr. Strauss: I have not seen those figures, but they are certainly not correct.

Mr. Harold Macmillan: Is it not a fact that the gentleman in question referred to defence purposes and not war purposes?

Mr. Blackburn: asked the Minister of Supply whether he will state the circumstances in which the atomic energy programme was delayed owing to the lack of priority for iron and steel until some date in 1947 in spite of the Prime Minister's statement in the House of Commons on 5th March, 1946, that the needs of atomic energy research should be accorded the highest priority; and what action he has taken to prevent a repetition of such delay.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: During 1946 there was no formal priority and reliance was placed on executive action, based on general statements of the Government's attitude. By the early part of 1947 it had become apparent that more formal treatment was required, and the Prime Minister's list of priorities, which included atomic energy was issued.

Mr. Blackburn: Does the Minister state to the House that despite the Prime Minister's statement, the highest possible priority was not given for atomic energy research, and in view of the great importance of this matter will he reconsider the submission of the Select Committee on Estimates that there should be an impartial committee of the House to help him in the discharge of this important function?

Mr. Strauss: In reply to the first part of the supplementary question, the formal priority was given in March. Prior to that, certain executive action was taken which it was hoped would be satisfactory, but it was considered later that some more


formal arrangement should be made, and it was made. In reply to the second part of the question, I really do not think that any committee as suggested would be helpful.

Mr. Blackburn: Do I understand the Minister to deny or to accept the fact that delay occurred after the Prime Minister's statement owing to the failure to give the highest possible priority to atomic energy research?

Mr. Strauss: I repeat that certain action was taken which did hasten matters, and many improvements were brought about. More formal priority was given a little later when the need for it became apparent.

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Minister of Supply what was the expenditure by this country on research and development of the atomic bomb before the agreement to combine research with the U.S.A. came into operation.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: Work in this country on the atomic bomb, during the period early in the war to which the Question refers, was preliminary and exploratory, and conducted principally in University laboratories. This work was of supreme importance, but the cost in money was not large. To arrive at the exact figure would require an unjustifiable amount of time and labour.

Factory, Girvan (Use)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Minister of Supply if he has considered the use of the factory at Girvan for the purpose of manufacturing fertilisers for agricultural purposes; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: Yes, Sir. Production of sulphuric acid, which is used in the manufacture of fertilisers, has been started at Girvan. The factory is not suitable for other fertiliser production.

Fordson Tractors, Yorkshire (Bearings)

Mr. Tinton: asked the Minister of Supply whether he is aware that there is a shortage of front wheel bearings for Fordson tractors in Yorkshire; and what steps are being taken to improve the situation.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: No, Sir, but if the hon. Member has information about shortages in any particular area of Yorkshire and will give me details, I shall be pleased to investigate the matter.

Baling Wire

Mr. George Jeger: asked the Minister of Supply whether he is aware of the acute shortage of baling wire; and whether he will take action to improve supplies.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: Yes, Sir. Arrangements have already been made to improve supplies, by increasing production in this country and by imports.

Zinc Oxide (Stocks)

Sir John Mellor: asked the Minister of Supply why stocks of zinc oxide in the United Kingdom are in excess of requirements.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: There has been no restriction on the supply of zinc oxide to the home market because of its importance as an industrial raw material. The position is being examined, but present indications are that there is not a general surplus.

Sir J. Mellor: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why the director of non-ferrous metals has refused permission to one of my constituents to export to Egypt 25 tons of zinc oxide which he is unable to sell in this country?

Mr. Strauss: We do not want to encourage exports of this material, because it is a dollar raw material and the conversion value is so low that we have limited the export to a small amount.

Sir J. Mellor: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the 25 tons of zinc oxide were lying idle and that if he will not let them be exported they cannot be sold at all?

Mr. Strauss: They will be sold before very long. If there was a surplus of zinc oxide, then the thing to do would be to limit the supply of zinc to the zinc oxide makers.

Oral Answers to Questions — OYSTER INDUSTRY

Mr. Driberg: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will take steps to encourage the revival of the oyster industry and to make oysters once more a cheap and popular food.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): Intensive research is now being carried out at Conway, and a new research station is being established at Burnham-on-Crouch, with a view to overcoming some of the difficulties confronting the oyster industry. Licences have been granted this year to import over 11 million seed oysters. It is hoped that as a result of these measures supplies of oysters will improve and again become available to the public at a reasonable price.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE

Pigs (Feedingstuffs)

Mr. Royle: asked the Minister of Agriculture if in view of the fact that during December, 1947, and January, 1948, 76 per cent. of the pigs slaughtered in this country were used for the private consumption of self-suppliers, as against 57 per cent. in the corresponding period a year ago, he will take immediate steps to allocate feedingstuffs in relation to the animals sold to the Ministry of Food.

Mr. T. Williams: Fat pigs sold to the Ministry of Food must already have been fed for several months, and any attempt to adjust rations of feedingstuffs to deliveries of fat pigs would raise problems of great complexity. That is not the only difficulty about my hon. Friend's proposal, which is, however, being examined in connection with the review of the basis of rationing which I announced on 25th March.

Mr. Royle: Is not the time overdue when people who are providing food for the common weal should have the greatest encouragement from the Minister?

Mr. Williams: Yes, Sir, and I think that that is the case at the moment. I would remind my hon. Friend that self-suppliers of pigs receive only a very small proportion in the form of a ration to feed their Pigs.

Mr. Nicholson: Will the Minister assure the House that the interests and needs of smallholders who keep one or two pigs for themselves will not be overlooked?

Mr. Williams: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Beechman: Will the Minister bear in mind that there are areas in this country where there are plenty of feeding-stuffs available for pigs, and the only thing which prevents people from keeping pigs is the system of rationing restrictions? Pigs are organically very valuable for small fauns and holdings; therefore, will he reconsider the matter?

Mr. Williams: I am not aware of that.

Mr. Baldwin: Is the Minister aware that the system of rationing would be unfair to those farmers who breed pigs for sale as stores and do not sell fat pigs to the Ministry of Food?

Mr. Williams: Certainly.

Fixed Equipment (Improvements)

Mr. Baldwin: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is satisfied that material and other facilities are available to enable landowners and farmers to make progress with the improvement of fixed equipment demanded by his programme of increased agricultural production.

Mr. T. Williams: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Baldwin: In view of the fact that there is to be a capital levy which will make it very difficult for landowners to provide capital equipment, will the Minister consider making representations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer whereby owners of land who plough back the capital levy into capital equipment will be given a remission on that account?

Mr. Williams: I do not accept the original assumption upon which the hon. Member based his question.

Wool (Change of Merchant)

Mr. Turton: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in order to give more adequate time for woolgrowers to consider the matter, he will extend the final date for the receipt of applications for change of wool merchants beyond 30th April, 1948.

Mr. T. Williams: No, Sir. The date to which the hon. Member refers was announced by my Department on 8th April. This should give farmers ample time to consider whether or not they wish to apply.

Mr. Turton: When the Minister fixed this very short period, did he take into account the fact that it is the busiest time of the year for sheep farmers and that this is a quite inadequate time for them to make up their minds?

Mr. Williams: Yes. The time was fixed with our eyes wide open, since we did not want such a long period between the date of the announcement and the ultimate date so that some merchants or agents could canvass for the purpose of drawing away customers by offering bonuses or by other means.

Mr. Turton: Am I to understand that the Minister does not intend to make the freedom of choice a real freedom?

Mr. Williams: No, the Ministry was trying to give every person an adequate opportunity either to change or to stay put, as desired.

Airfield, Holme Moor (Cultivation)

Mr. Odey: asked the Minister of Agriculture why he has not entrusted the cultivation of Holme Moor R.A.F. to Mr. Loftus, a competent farmer who has all along been the tenant of the Church Commissioners.

Mr. T. Williams: The East Riding Agricultural Executive Committee, as my agents, were directly responsible for arranging for the cultivation of this airfield to secure maximum food production. They decided, after full consideration of all the circumstances, that the best course was for them to cultivate the land themselves, and I am satisfied that they were justified in so deciding.

Mr. Odey: What conceivable grounds can there be for depriving a competent farmer of his land and of part of his livelihood?

Mr. Williams: Again I do not accept the assumption behind the hon. Gentleman's question. The farmer's livelihood has not been endangered by the R.A.F. taking over this area of land. Now that a portion of it is available temporarily, the county executive committee thought that they were the best body to ensure that the maximum use for food production would be made of it.

Mr. Odey: How can that possibly be so in view of the fact that some 200 acres

of land were requisitioned to form this aerodrome and that the land had been cultivated by Mr. Loftus who is a tenant of the Church Commissioners?

Mr. Williams: That is true, but my reports are not to the effect that the land was cultivated as land ought to be cultivated in 1948.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF WORKS

Bricks, Tamworth (Sale)

Sir J. Mellor: asked the Minister of Works if he will make an Order amending S.R. & O., 1947, Nos. 1641 and 2821 to enable the liquidator of the Tamworth Brick Company Limited to sell 500,000 bricks below existing statutory minimum prices, because any bricks unsold will necessarily be abandoned upon the imminent termination of the Company's lease.

The Minister of Works (Mr. Key): No, Sir, but steps are being taken to assist the liquidator to sell the bricks.

Sir J. Mellor: Will the right hon. Gentleman give some idea of what the steps are, because they have tried for a long time to obtain the minimum price and are unable to do it? Will they not be allowed to reduce their prices and sell below?

Mr. Key: I think there is a customer for all these particular bricks.

Cement Supplies

Mr. David Jones: asked the Minister of Works whether he is aware of the shortage of cement in the Northern Region; and that, as a consequence, numbers of building trade workers are idle; and what steps he proposes to take to remedy this matter.

Mr. Murray: asked the Minister of Works if he is aware of the great shortage of cement in the Northern Region, as a result of which building schemes are being suspended and workers laid off; what is being done to overcome this breakdown of supply; and if he will take immediate steps to increase supplies.

Mr. Key: I am aware that there has been a shortage of cement in the Northern Region, and I have arranged for the cement distributors to despatch extra supplies, which should by now be reaching the region.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY

Children (British Fathers)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what further action has been taken to deal with the problems and needs arising from German women who have or have had children by British Service men; and to what extent progress has been made to enable these women to possess at least the same rights as those available to British women in similar circumstances.

The Minister of State (Mr. McNeil): I regret I am not yet able to add anything to the reply given to my hon. Friend on 3rd March.

Mr. Sorensen: Does that mean that, in the course of time, the right hon. Gentleman will be able to do something, or that he has nothing to add and intends to do nothing?

Mr. McNeil: It means that quite complex discussions are going on with the Service Departments concerned, and that, when these conversations are completed, I shall be in a better position to answer my hon. Friend's Question more precisely.

Mr. Sorensen: Does that mean that we may have some hopes that this problem will find some solution?

Mr. McNeil: As my right hon. Friend has already made clear, we have been considering this matter for a considerable time, and we do completely agree with my hon. Friend that we should continue to try to find some solution.

Control Commission (Staff)

Sir William Darling: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that members of the Control Commission in Germany have not received a monthly statement of salaries since October, 1947, and that such unsatisfactory financial arrangements are causing general embarrassment; and what action he proposes to take to relieve these persons of uncertainty and anxiety.

Mr. McNeil: Monthly statements of pay for every member of the Control Service have been issued promptly and regularly from London, and, while there have been difficulties in distribution in Germany, I have no reason to think that any substantial numbers have not been delivered.

The arrangements in Germany have recently been improved and should now ensure prompt delivery in all cases.

"M" Plan (Document)

Mr. Harold Davies: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has any further statement to make on the authenticity of the document known as Protocol "M."

Captain Field: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether further to the examination made of the "M" Plan, any arrests have been made of the persons named in the document; whether they have been brought to trial; and with what results.

Mr. Platts-Mills: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has any statement to make as to the genuineness of the document known as Protocol "M"

Mr. Fernyhough: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has now any further statement to make to the House with regard to Protocol "M."

Mr. McNeil: Protocol "M" was first published on 14th January, 1948, by the German Press in Berlin who had obtained copies of this document by the ordinary methods of news gathering, and its publication was undertaken quite freely and without any instigation by us or, as far as we know, by any other Government. The British authorities in Berlin had had at that time a copy in their hands for several days, but we had been making ordinary inquiries to test the reliability of this document before taking any steps.
Following publication, and in response to Questions in the House, I said, on behalf of my right hon. Friend, that having made such inquiries as were possible, we had no reason to believe otherwise than that the document was authentic. However, my right hon. Friend decided that the most careful and exhaustive investigations into the antecedents of the document should be undertaken. These eventually led us to a German not employed by His Majesty's Government who, after questioning, volunteered that he was the author of the document. I have read a summary of his statements and I must tell the House that they are not convincing and that they are in parts conflicting.
My right hon. Friend, however, wishes it made plain that after these further investigations we can only conclude that the authenticity of the document now lies in doubt. Two points, however, should be made. There have been developments in Germany which correspond to statements included in the document, and there are strong indications that even if the document is not itself authentic, it has been compiled from authoritative Communist sources, and this is corroborated by information already in our possession.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Before my right hon. Friend assures the House in future that such documents are genuine, will he consult his right hon. Friend about the Zinoviev letter, the forged "Pravda" and similar forgeries? Will he tell us why it was necessary to have the disclosure of this document as a forgery brought to our notice by a New York newspaper?

Mr. McNeil: I fiercely resent the imputations which have been made—

Mr. Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman did so before.

Mr. McNeil: I am probably likely to do so again if they are made in similar terms. The investigations by my right hon. Friend were initiated and carried through weeks before any newspaper report was available in New York or elsewhere.

Soviet Zones (Air Corridors)

Mr. Niall Macpherson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, under what instruments the air corridors through Soviet zones, linking the British zones in Germany and Austria with the British sectors in Berlin and Vienna, respectively, were created and guaranteed as rights of way; what other nations besides Great Britain may use the corridors under the instruments; and what rights are conferred and limitations imposed therein on the Soviet Government for use for purposes other than air communications.

Mr. McNeil: As regards Germany, by an agreement reached in the Control Council on 30th November, 1945, air corridors were established for the use of aircraft of the four occupying Powers. No particular rights were conferred or limitations imposed upon the Soviet Government by this agreement, which merely

established the corridors. In the case of Austria, a similar agreement was reached in the Allied Council on 28th June, 1946.

Mr. Macpherson: Does the agreement cover the right of transit between the British sectors and the airport which is used there.

Mr. McNeil: In the case of Austria, the agreement certainly covers the channels between the British zone and Vienna.

Yugoslavs (Repatriation)

Mr. Stokes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether he will give the names of the 16 Yugoslavs from Munster Lager who are to be forcibly repatriated to Yugoslavia as alleged war criminals;
(2) under which Clause of the Moscow Conference of October, 1943, he is returning alleged Yugoslav war criminals to Yugoslavia.

Mr. McNeil: Any Yugoslav who is repatriated from Munster Lager will be so treated, not as a war criminal, but because in the opinion of His Majesty's Government a prima facie case of wilful and active collaboration has been established against him; which makes him liable for repatriation in accordance with the undertaking given by His Majesty's Government to the members of the United Nations War Crimes Commission on 29th March, 1945, as reinforced by the, Resolution of the General Assembly of The United Nations on 27th October, 1947. The question of the Moscow Conference does not, therefore, arise. I have the names of 18 men against whom a prima facie case has been established, which I will, with permission circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Stokes: Am Ito understand that the provision laid down in Moscow in 1943, to the effect that such people should be sent back to the countries where the crimes had been committed to be tried under the law of those liberated countries and of the free governments which had been created therein, no longer applies? Is it not necessary that there should be a freely elected government?

Mr. McNeil: In the case of the men to whom my hon. Friend has drawn my attention—that is, the men from Munster Lager—the Moscow Resolution, as I have already explained, does not obtain. These are men against whom a prima facie case has been established as quislings.

Mr. Nicholson: As it must be quite certain that repatriation of these Yugoslays would most likely mean the imposition of the death sentence without a fair trial, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the establishment of a prima facie case partakes the nature of a fair trial? Are they allowed to summon witnesses in their defence?

Mr. McNeil: I am very sensible of the point to which the hon. Gentleman has drawn my attention. The most strict and severe tests were laid down in our examination before we agreed to repatriate anyone, because we knew that in all probability trial would be difficult and perhaps even summary.

Mr. Henry Strauss: Does not the right hon. Gentleman admit that the tests which these men have undergone are tests to discover whether there is any prima facie case? The fact that there is a prima facie case is surely no argument against their right to a fair trial?

Mr. McNeil: His Majesty's Government have repeatedly joined in this issue of providing fair trials, but this is somewhat hypothetical. What we have been most concerned to do is to ensure that a case was established beyond doubt before we agreed to repatriation.

Mr. Francis Noel-Baker: Can my right hon. Friend say whether no time limit is to be set for these forcible repatriations? —because they have been going on year after year.

Major Beamish: Could the Minister make it clear for what purpose these men are being forcibly repatriated, and is he aware that if continual forcible repatriation goes on, it will be wholly indefensible on moral grounds quite apart from other grounds?

Mr. McNeil: I would not seek to deny the very real feeling which moves the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but these men have been delivered because we have given certain undertakings which we feel we must fulfil. Of course, there is no question of these undertakings having no term or date attached to them.

Mr. Nicholson: For the satisfaction of public opinion in this country, can the

right hon. Gentleman say whether he is 100 per cent, satisfied in his own mind that no injustice will take place?

Mr. Stokes: Has my right hon. Friend attached as a condition to the repatriation of these men that they shall have a free and fair trial on their return?

Mr. McNeil: The other people gave undertakings, and it is their job to fulfil them. I can only say that we have fulfilled our obligations.

Major Beamish: In view of the extraordinarily unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I wish to give notice that I hope to raise this matter on the Adjournment as soon as possible.

Following are the names referred to:

Vladimir Djukic (Captain), Ratko Obradovic, Ilija. Micasevic, Borisav Grujin, Aleksander Lazarevic, Miodrag Kapetanovic, Dusan Dzakovic, Dusan Sakic, Branko Pavasovic, Marko Lokas, Dusan Buljevic, Vladimir Lazic, Ivan Mojic, Vasilje Eric, Ugljesa Spasic, Milan Sretenovic, Milisav Grujic, Djordje Radonjic.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH HONDURAS

Mr. Erroll: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress he is making in his discussions with Guatemala concerning British Honduras.

Mr. McNeil: No discussions are being or have been conducted with the Guatemalan Government though exchanges of views in official Notes have taken place. His Majesty's Government, however, are still anxious to reach a settlement of this dispute and are prepared carefully to consider any reasonable proposals.

Mr. Erroll: Is the position, then, that the British:Government are doing nothing until further representations are made?

Mr. McNeil: I can scarcely see that there is any obligation on His Majesty's Government.

Mr. Keeling: Has the Minister of State any information about an impending telegram to Guatemala from hon. Members behind him?

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL CHILDREN'S EMERGENCY FUND

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent the International Children's Emergency Fund is affected by the decision to launch the European Reconstruction plan; and whether any portion of the £100,000 granted by His Majesty's Government has yet been allocated.

Mr. McNeil: Under the "International Children's Emergency Fund Assistance Act of 1948" which forms Title 11 of the United States "Foreign Assistance Act of 1948," it is provided in effect that for every 28 dollars contributed to the Children's Fund by Governments not benefitting from the operations of the Fund, the United States Government will contribute 72 dollars, provided that the total sum contributed by the United States shall not exceed 100 million dollars. This most generous offer remains open until the 30th June, 1949. With regard to the second part of the Question, contribution by His Majesty's Government to the Fund will not be granted until the Lord Mayor's Appeal for Children has reached the sum of £500,000.

Mr. Sorensen: Has the right hon. Gentleman any idea as to the time limit for the collection of moneys for the Lord Mayor's Fund; otherwise it might lead to indefinite delay of our part of the contribution?

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what machinery he proposes to set up for negotiations with the Administrator appointed by the U.S.A. to co-ordinate the needs and the form it should take, of the 16 nations; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. McNeil: The hon. and gallant Member is aware that, in company with the representatives of the other participating countries of Western Europe, my right hon. Friend signed the Convention for the establishment of the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation in Paris on 16th April. A White Paper containing the text of the Convention, and

of the Resolutions transmitted to the Council of the Organisation by the Committee of European Economic Co-operation, which the Committee also approved on 16th April will be placed before the House as soon as possible.
As far as relations with the United States Administrator are concerned, one of the resolutions approved by the Committee reads as follows:
The Organisation for European Economic Co-operation should make all such arrangements as may be appropriate to maintain close relationships with the United States Special Representative in Europe appointed in accordance with the United States Economic Cooperation Act of 1948, and to assist him in the performance of his duties.
In accordance with the terms of the United States Foreign Assistance Act, bilateral agreements will also be concluded between the United States Government and each participating country. It is expected that the negotiation of these agreements will be conducted through the normal channels.

Colonel Hutchison: In view of these enormously important conferences, and the results that will flow from them to this country, has the right hon. Gentleman any machinery in mind whereby this House can consider these questions from time to time?

Mr. McNeil: I should think that, perhaps, that question might be more appropriately addressed to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

Mr. Maclay: Can the Minister state whether the precise terms of the United States Foreign Assistance Act are available in this country, or whether he can make them available?

Mr. McNeil: I am sure we can get them and place them in the Library.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE

Truce Proposals

Sir Patrick Hannon: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent proposals for a truce between Arabs and Jews at the instance of the United Nations organisation have had sympathetic response; and if he entertains hope of the suspension of hostilities pending the establishment of a new administration in succession to the determination of the mandate.

Mr. McNeil: The truce proposals have, unfortunately, had little practical effect so far. However, a further resolution, following that of 1st April, was adopted by the Security Council on 17th April, calling for a truce and indicating in detail the measures to be taken by those concerned to restore peace; and I hope that it will elicit a sympathetic response.

Sir P. Hannon: Is the Foreign Secretary intervening in this matter in order to expedite the conclusions that ought to be reached so as to get a truce between Arabs and Jews in Palestine?

Mr. McNeil: My right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary is in New York at this time, and I am certain that he will contribute any advice appropriate to this subject, but, of course, the British Government have already declared themselves in support of a truce.

Jerusalem (Governorship)

Sir P. Hannon: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, if a decision has now been reached by the United Nations organisation on the appointment of a Governor for the city of Jerusalem and the Holy Places; if he will state the powers, duties and functions of the Governor so appointed; and if the recruitment of the necessary forces to sustain the executive authority of the Governor has been completed.

Mr. McNeil: No Governor for Jerusalem has yet been appointed. In implementation of the Resolution of the United Nations General Assembly of 29th November, 1947, the Trusteeship Council elaborated a draft Constitution for the City of Jerusalem covering, among other things, the appointment and functions of a Governor and a draft of instructions to the Governor so appointed. It did not, however, give final approval to either, nor did it proceed with the appointment of a Governor, but decided on 10th March to postpone these matters till a subsequent meeting which is to be held on 21st April.
With regard to the recruitment of a security force for Jerusalem, the United Nations Palestine Commission have been in touch with the Government of Pales-tone who have advised them on the problem, have offered to communicate to British members of the Palestine Police Force any offers of service which may he made, and have gladly consented to a

United Nations representative proceeding to Palestine to make arrangements for recruiting such forces.

Sir P. Hannon: Does the Minister of State realise the urgency of this question? May I ask him what steps are being taken by the Foreign Office to make representations to the United Nations organisation that no time must be lost in the appointment of a Governor if we are to save the Holy Places from desecration in future?

Mr. McNeil: Such delay as there has been has been entered upon despite the pleadings and advice of His Majesty's Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN SERVICE (FASCISM)

Mr. Platts-Mills: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any members of the Diplomatic, Consular and Information Service suspected of membership of Fascist organisations have now been transferred to other employment or dismissed.

Mr. McNeil: No member of any existing Fascist organisation is, as far as I know, employed in any branch of the Foreign Service, and accordingly none have been transferred or dismissed.

Mr. Platts-Mills: Would my right hon. Friend be good enough to cast his eye in the direction of Ankara?

Mr. McNeil: I have already examined the situation in Ankara to which my hon. Friend has drawn my attention, and the facts there seem much plainer than the facts in the resolution of which I believe my hon. Friend is the author.

Mr. Platts-Mills: While the House will not expect me to compete with my right hon. Friend in vulgarity and personal abuse, perhaps he will explain what he is talking about.

Mr. McNeil: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman, having been responsible for the Question, might have cleared that up himself.

Oral Answers to Questions — AUSTRIA (DOMESTIC PRODUCTS)

Mr. Bechervaise: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Four Power Control Agreement of


July, 1946, which guaranteed to Austria the free interchange of domestic products between the four zones, is in full operation, or what restrictions have been imposed.

Mr. McNeil: As far as the British, French and United States zones in Austria are concerned, the Control Agreement of 28th June, 1946, providing for the free interchange of domestic products between the zones of Austria, is in full operation. The Soviet authorities, however, at the end of last year, imposed a system of control whereby Soviet permits had to be produced before certain goods were allowed out of the Soviet zone. I understand that, in spite of protests in the Allied Commission, these restrictions continue to be operated by the Soviet authorities. The list of goods covered by this order included foodstuffs, fuel, building materials and certain metals.

Oral Answers to Questions — THEIR MAJESTIES' SILVER WEDDING (ADDRESS)

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, might I say that it may be convenient for me to inform the House that at the beginning of Business on Monday, 26th April, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister proposes to move for an Address of Congratulation on the occasion of Their Majesties' Silver Wedding. I am sure that the House would wish to have an opportunity of expressing its congratulations to their Majesties on this occasion.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

AIR COLLISION, BERLIN (INQUIRY FINDINGS)

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Ernest Bevin): A fortnight ago today we heard with horror of the air accident over Berlin in which a Russian Yak fighter came into collision with a B.E.A.C. Viking passenger aircraft, and all the passengers and crew of the Viking and the pilot of the Soviet fighter lost their lives. In my statement immediately after this accident I asked the House to withhold judgment until the facts were fully established. I thank the House for their response.
I have now received the report of the Court of Inquiry set up by the British Commander-in-Chief in Germany which has been investigating the collision. I am arranging for the publication of this report as a Command Paper,' which will be in the Vote Office today, but the House will, I am sure, wish to hear the results of the inquiry at once. Before I read the findings, however, I would like to say a word about the attitude of His Majesty's Government throughout this episode.
We had at our disposal evidence which seemed to establish prima facie the facts of the collision and which seemed to show that the highly tendentious accounts issued by the Soviet authorities immediately following the unfortunate accident were unjustified. However, we decided to wait for the result of a proper investigation of all the facts which could be obtained before giving our account to the House.
The steps which were taken to deal with this case were as follows. We decided to ask the Russians to co-operate with us. Accordingly, General Robertson proposed that he and Marshal Sokolowsky should appoint a joint Commission of Inquiry, on which the French and Americans would also be represented. This was refused. General Robertson then accepted the Soviet proposal for a joint British and Soviet technical investigation. When the experts met, however, a difficulty arose because the Soviet representative refused to hear oval evidence unless either side wished to query any written statement which had previously been submitted. The Russians also refused to hear statements from witnesses other than British or Soviet nationals.
General Robertson, therefore, gave instructions for our investigation to proceed on the basis of a hearing of all material witnesses. He invited Soviet representatives to be present, and also American and French observers. The Russians did not attend. American and French observers were present.
The facts have now been established and I will now read the findings of the Court of Inquiry:
After the most careful consideration of all the evidence produced before us we tender the following findings as to the causes of the collision under investigation. We are unanimous in our views and have had no difficulty in arriving at our conclusions, which,


in our opinion, are overwhelmingly supported by the oral and written evidence placed before the Court.

(1) There was no evidence to show that the collision was anything but an accident.
(2) The Viking aircraft was in an airworthy condition and at the time of collision was proceeding on its normal course in favourable flying conditions. It was 280 yards outside the two-mile circuit of the Soviet airfield at Dalgow and when the collision occurred was turning away from it.
(3) The Yak fighter, which had been performing aerobatics in the vicinity of the collision for some time before the collision occurred, dived down from a considerable height in a power dive and passed the Viking close to its starboard wing. It then turned in a steep left-hand climbing turn. While still steeply banking, the Yak collided head on with the Viking, with the result that the leading edge of the Yak's starboard wing and the leading edge of the Viking's port wing came into collision and both wings were severed. When the wreckage of the Yak was examined it was found that the Yak's undercarriage and wheels were locked in the upward position and that the tail wheel unit was retracted into the up position, thus showing that the Yak was not preparing to land.
(4) The pilot of the Viking was in no way to blame for the collision and had no opportunity of taking avoiding action.
(5) The presence of the Soviet fighter was never notified to the British authorities and the fact of its being in the air at the time was not known to the Soviet officials of the Berlin Air Safety Centre.
(6) The collision was caused by the action of the Soviet fighter aircraft, which was in disregard of the accepted rules of flying and, in particular, of the Quadripartite flying rules to which the Soviet authorities were parties.
(7) The Viking aircraft exploded on hitting the ground and, although there is no direct evidence to prove such a fact, the 14 passengers and crew met instantaneous death due to the impact and the explosion."
The report which accompanies these findings has been examined and the evidence mentioned in the report justifies the findings. I am satisfied that no blame is to be attached to the pilot of the Viking. General Robertson is sending a copy of the report and findings to the Russian Commander-in-Chief in Berlin and is also sending copies to the United States and French Commandersin-Chief.
In view of the facts now established, His Majesty's Government will proceed

to claim compensation from the Soviet Government. In conclusion, the House will, I am sure, wish to reaffirm its sympathy with the relatives of those who unfortunately lost their lives in this disaster.

Mr. H. Macmillan: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to associate my right hon. and hon. Friends with the expression of deep sympathy with the relatives of all the victims of this terrible accident. I would' like to add, also, that I hope His Majesty's Government will press their claims for compensation with the utmost vigour. Perhaps I may be allowed to ask one question. What steps are being taken to ensure that such an accident shall not be repeated?

Mr. Bevin: Certainly we shall take up the claim for compensation immediately. We have received oral assurance that there will be no interference and that any such occurrence is unlikely to occur in the future.

Mr. Vernon Bartlett: Is there any truth in reports that Soviet fighter aircraft have carried out similar aerobatics in the past to the danger of British aircraft carrying on their normal business?

Mr. Bevin: I have seen that in the Press. As to whether there is any evidence, I shall have to make inquiries. I have tried my best to keep this inquiry strictly to this object.

Air-Commodore Harvey: If there is any indication or sign of interference in future, will the right hon. Gentleman not hesitate to put on jet fighter escorts? Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the facts he has given to the House are broadcast on all foreign wavelengths, so that they will be known by everybody?

Mr. Bevin: Yes, the report will be broadcast in the Overseas Service, and it will be issued as a White Paper this afternoon in the House, which will ensure it great publicity. It is very authorative. With regard to putting on fighter escorts, I am going to assume that the Soviet will be sensible, and, therefore, I shall not indulge in any threats of any kind.

ITALIAN ELECTION (MEMBERS' TELEGRAM)

Mr. Blackburn: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I beg to move,
That a Committee of Privileges be appointed to investigate into and report on the circumstances in which a number of names of Members of this House were allegedly appended without their approval to a telegram sent on 16th April"—

Mr. Speaker: I must interrupt the hon. Gentleman right away. He started by saying that it was with my permission. I had already informed him, when the matter was submitted to me, that my permission had not been granted because there was no prima facie case.

Mr. Blackburn: I meant that I was rising with your permission, Mr. Speaker, not that I was moving my Motion with your permission. The Motion is to appoint a Committee of Privileges to inquire into the circumstances in which a number of names of Members were allegedly appended without their approval to a telegram sent on r6th April to Signor Nenni wishing him outstanding success in the forthcoming Italian elections.
The facts are stated in today's "Daily Herald," which says that on Friday last a telegram was sent purporting to be in the names of 37 Members of this House. Today's "Daily Herald" says that the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Baird) states:
I deny all knowledge of the telegram. I did not see it.
The hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Tiffany) says:
I refused to sign when I was asked, and I certainly did not sign.
The hon. Member for Deritend (Mr. Long-den) says:
I knew about the telegram, but I did not sign it.
The hon. Member for Central Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. Wilkes) says:
I disclaim having signed the Nenni telegram.
In my submission to you, Mr. Speaker, this is a matter which does give rise to a breach of Privilege for this reason. In sending telegrams overseas, particularly on the eve of such an important election as the Italian Elections, Members of Parliament are responsible for what they do, and it is part of their Parliamentary

conduct. In my submission, their Parliamentary conduct is not strictly limited to everything they do in the House of Commons, in as much as the consequences of the Italian Elections will influence the foreign affairs Debate now pending. It is, indeed, a very serious matter, because, if it be the case, as hon. Members have stated—and there are other hon. Members who have made similar statements—that they did not sign the telegram, then some of the signatures on the telegram were, in fact, forged; and others concerned were obtained by fraud. In all the circumstances I ask that I may move that a Committee of Privileges be appointed to inquire into the whole of the circumstances with the sole object of getting the facts ascertained and decided upon by an entirely impartial tribunal.

Mr. Speaker: The Committee of Privileges already exists, and, therefore, one has not to be appointee. It all depends whether I rule that there is a prima facie case. While I quite agree that this is a serious matter, I have to deal with the question whether it affects Privilege or not. This is a matter which affects individual Members. They are Members of Parliament, but this is a question affecting certain individuals, and is not a matter of Privilege. I rule that there is no prima facie case.

Mr. Blackburn: In view of your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, that this is a matter which cannot be dealt with by the Committee of Privileges, may I ask the Leader of the House if he will find time for the Motion on the Order Paper in the name of 10 hon. Members for a Select Committee to investigate into and report on the circumstances in which a number of names of hon. Members were allegedly appended without their approval to a telegram sent on 16th April to Signor Nenni, wishing him outstanding success in the Italian Elections?

Mr. H. Morrison: I will consider it. I have not seen the Motion. I will consider it, if it is on the Order Paper. But I am not sure that there are not other methods, and more appropriate methods, of dealing with this matter. My hon. Friend may be assured that, as far as I am concerned, it will be dealt with.

Mr. Platts-Mills: In view of the observation of my right hon. Friend, would it be


proper if I said something in my turn? As one of those who adhered to the telegram which was sent to the official Italian Socialist Party—[HON. MEMBERS "Oh."] I should like to say a word. It has been suggested that certain Members of this House have sought to dissociate themselves from—

Mr. Speaker: A personal statement must not bring in provocative matters. It must be a statement of fact. While I quite agree that a matter of Privilege may concern the hon. Gentleman, I have ruled that there is not a prima facie case, and, therefore, that is out of the way. I do not want to be unfair to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Platts-Mills: In those circumstances I reserve my observations to some other occasion.

Sir W. Smithers: If this matter is to be dealt with on the basis of discipline, ought not the House of Commons to decide the issue? Surely it ought not to be decided only by a Party verdict?

Mr. Morrison: This is a point about which I do not want to pronounce final judgment until I see the notice of the Motion which my hon. Friend has said he has put down. It is really a question of what is the most appropriate and effective way of dealing with it. It is going to be dealt with effectively.

Mr. Bellenger: If the fact that hon. Members' names have been used in vain is true, then have those hon. Members no redress in this House whatever?

Mr. Speaker: Not in the House. An hon. Member has his redress because the matter was published in the newspapers, and he has redress in the courts.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: We all realise that the Leader of the House must have time

to consider this matter, but will he remember that this is not only a question which might be one for Party discipline—as to the contents of the telegram which was sent—but that there is a very grave allegation, that names were appended without authorisation? That is a matter which concerns the House as a whole, because if that were to spread we might all find ourselves involved in things with which we did not agree. Moreover, the denials which come later never are quite able to catch up with the original story.

Mr. Morrison: I shall certainly keep that point in mind and take it into account.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Whatever may be the pros and cons of this matter or the effective treatment of it, may I make it clear that the hon. Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn) in no way speaks for the political conscience of myself and many other hon. Members on this side of the House?

Mr. Blackburn: Have not the facts of the case made that abundantly plain already?

Mr. C. Poole: There are an awful lot of people on this side of the House for whose consciences I should not like to have to speak.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY AND PRIVATE BUSINESS)

Ordered:
That this day, the Business of Supply may be taken after Ten o'Clock and shall be exempted from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House) for One hour after Ten o'Clock; and that, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 6, any Private Business set down for consideration at Seven o'clock this evening, by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, may be taken after Nine o'Clock.—[Mr. H. Morrison.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[10th ALLOTTED DAY]

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1948–49

Order for Committee read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—[Mr. Whiteley.]

Orders of the Day — EXPORT TARGETS

3.50 p.m.

Mr. Hollis: I beg to move, to leave out from "That," to the end of the Question, and to add:
this House expresses its alarm at the revision of the export targets for 5948 and its concern at the lack of definite plans for their achievement.
The Ballot, in which I had the good fortune to be successful, took place some time ago—I think at the end of February—and at that time I was not aware when this Debate would take place. Indeed, so far as I had any time to meditate during the split second after, to my surprise, my name was read out, I imagined that it would take place comparatively shortly after the Ballot. Therefore, it was in my mind that perhaps we should have a discussion on these export targets—have some preliminary probe—before the Economic Survey was produced. As it happens, some months have elapsed and the Debate has come along today, when the general economic position and in particular the export targets, were discussed in some detail only six or seven days ago.
The fact that I have had good fortune in the Ballot—and it would be an impertinence even to suggest it—obviously gives me no sort of claim to direct the course of the Debate or to seek to guide hon. Members as to what subjects, large or small, they may choose to raise. That is so obvious that it hardly needs saying. But for myself, I thought it more convenient not to attempt to go over the whole of the large ground which has been covered by hon. Members so comparatively recently, or to discuss these all important but general questions of why there is the problem of the balance of payments, and so on, with which every-

body must now be fairly familiar, but rather to concentrate in particular on the Press statement made by the President of the Board of Trade last Tuesday and certain matters arising out of it, because, as the House will recollect, the right hon. Gentleman spoke in the Debate on Monday and then made a Press statement on Tuesday. Thus, we have certain new questions to which it will be of great interest to the House to get answers.
If we were dealing with the larger question, the long-term question of what should be the economic policy of this country in export or import trade, naturally there would be certain matters upon which we should have differences of opinion. Even when our Debate is tied down to a short-term Amendment about the export trade for 1948, one obviously cannot, in the nature of things, entirely consider the short-term policy without glancing at one's view upon long-term policy. I, most certainly, and most, I think, of my hon. Friends are very doubtful whether the time will come when it will be possible to practise non-discrimination in foreign trade nearly so soon as we have sometimes been promised. We have expressed our doubt whether it was wise to sign certain instruments expressing the hope to practise that policy at dates when we do not think it will be at all probable that we can practise it. Such statements as have sometimes been made from the Government Front Bench about their hopes to be able to practise a policy of non-discrimination at such dates as 1952 seem to us to be reckless and dangerous. Nevertheless, whatever may be the year when such things may be possible, for the moment we are concerned with the export targets for 1948.
Whatever differences of opinion there may be on what will or will not be possible in 1952, there is at any rate no difference of opinion that for the moment, in 1948, our policy must be a policy of practising discrimination; that the great gap in our balance of payments is the balance with the Western hemisphere; and that therefore, in order to make effective use of Marshall aid, and to make it last as long as possible, it is necessary that our imports from that hemisphere should be as small as possible and that our exports to that hemisphere should be as large as possible. The Government, which for some time took the line that it was of secondary importance to them


whether they got Marshall aid or not, now frankly confess that, had Marshall aid not been forthcoming the most drastic austerity would have had to be imposed upon the country. Fortunately Marshall aid is to be forthcoming But there still remains the very grave question—and it is obviously in the light of that question that this Debate must be carried on—whether Marshall aid will be sufficient to bridge the formidable gap, or whether that aid will run out as rapidly as the American Loan ran out and leave the problem entirely unsolved. It is in order that we may be helped towards getting an answer to that anxious question that I want to approach the right hon. Gentleman today.
Before we discuss the prospects of the particular commodities about which the President of the Board of Trade spoke—our visible exports—I should like to say a word or two about our invisible exports, because one of my most serious criticisms of the Government is that at this time, when exports are such a necessity, the Government have shown such a very cavalier attitude towards invisible exports throughout their whole term of office. We are continually being told—and it is patently true—that our position is extremely difficult, because of the things that we, produce in this country there are extremely few which are not also produced in the United States of America and other countries. Therefore, once the sellers' market goes it will be extremely difficult for us to maintain our exports. That being so, it would surely be the merest common sense that we should have fostered in every way an export trade in things we do which are unique, which the rest of the world needs, and which are not done in the rest of the world. A wise Government would have paid supreme attention to our invisible exports throughout these years. Instead, this Government has treated them in an extremely cavalier fashion. The Economic Survey is typical of the sort of way in which these expert services, in which this country has an especial tradition, are treated by the Government, for in Table VIII on page 13 we see a rather contemptuous entry under invisible receipts of what is called "Other (net)", and we read the figures:

1938, + 100.
1946, + 73.
1947, (provisional) — 20.
1948, 1st Half (forecast) — 11.
That is a matter which should give us very great concern. It is extraordinary that in such a position the Government, instead of having fostered invisible exports, should have done such a thing as shutting down the Liverpool Cotton Exchange. I see the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is here; and perhaps the next point is rather for him to answer than the President of the Board of Trade.
Consider the policy which the Government have pursued in the handling of gold sales by the City of London. Towards the end of 1946, the Bank of England gave permission to the London market to act as intermediary in bar gold transactions, at a premium of over 35 dollars. It is estimated that, in the first half of 1947, about one million dollars were earned by this country in this way by commissions on freight, insurance and so on. Then at the request of the International Monetary Fund these transactions were closed down in July, 1947. But for some reason or other, the Americans were allowed to go on for a further six months, while, as I have said, the Treasury prevented British financiers from indulging in them.
The result is that we have lost an extremely valuable market. The same applies with processed gold. Under the Treasury Export Float Schemes there were steady demands from New York and other places for 22-carat sheet gold. It is estimated that a further one million dollars were netted in this way over the price which the Bank of England were obtaining for their own gold sales. Now the Treasury is refusing to grant further licences for this. Meantime, transactions are going on in New York and other countries, and these extremely valuable and lucrative export services, which we have carried on for centuries, have been lost by this country, and it will be extremely difficult to regain them. Why, at this moment, should everything be done to hamper these experts in carrying on these services?
Let us take next the question of convertibility. This is not the time or place to discuss the technical question of the date when it might be safe to make sterling convertible, but it is for that reason


a good opportunity to lay down a general principle upon which all sane people must be agreed, whatever their side in that controversy; that is that, whatever may be the time to make sterling convertible, the ideal, which all sides are agreed upon in this controversy, is to have a state of affairs where countries are anxious freely to leave their money in this country, are free to withdraw when they like, but do not withdraw it because they trust the integrity of, and have confidence in, the British financial administration.
That being so, there never was a time when it was more manifestly ridiculous to pursue a policy which destroys confidence in the £. The whole financial policy of the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) stands condemned, not only because of its immediate effect upon this country, but because it has made incomparably more difficult the international financial policy of this country, whether pursued by him or by his successors. We have this great dilemma which I should like cleared up: that the Chancellor of the Exchequer holds out hope that by the end of the year our books may balance in general, but he holds out no hope that our trade with the Western hemisphere will balance. That obviously means, as a matter of mathematics, that if we are to have an unfavourable balance with the Western hemisphere and at the same time a general balance, we are to have a heavily favourable balance with the rest of the world.
That being so, even if we get that balance, we shall have an enormous volume of unrequited exports, which we can ill afford in our present state of affairs. If we had a more sensible financial policy at home, there would be very much less pressure in regard to unrequited exports, because foreign countries would be only too willing to keep their balances in this country, as they did before the war. The pressure of unrequited exports is the vote of censure on the financial policy of the Government by the rest of the world. Therefore, my first point is to impress the importance of invisible exports.
I now wish to come to the particular commodities referred to in the Economic Survey, and in respect of which the right hon. Gentleman spoke during his Press conference the other day. Broadly, the

picture of the revision of targets was that coal should be the same as before, that we should export less steel than we had expected, and that we should, to make up for this, export more textiles; on balance, our percentage of exports was not to be as high as we had hoped. It is on these three commodities, coal, steel and textiles, that I should like to make a few observations. The Minister of Fuel and Power congratulated himself and the country upon the fact that coal exports had started again. He is right to congratulate himself on that, and it would have been disastrous if these exports had not begun. The only point I wish to make about coal is this: The Minister of Fuel and Power has issued a general warning against people who demanded a larger output. He said that
It is an easy game to set targets. It is easy to say that there ought to have been a 20 or 30 per cent. increase in output, or that we should aim at 220 million tons or 230 million tons."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th April, 1948; Vol. 449, c. 822.]
Indeed we can all play that game, but if the right hon. Gentleman teaches us that lesson, he should also teach it to some of his colleagues. There is no point in saying that there shall be a target of 220 million tons, if we are not going to reach it. But the right hon. Gentleman also said that at present we were producing 4¼ million tons a week, and he held out hopes that that figure would be 4,600,000 tons by the end of the year. It is simple arithmetic to multiply 4¼ million tons by 52 weeks, thus giving us a figure of 221 million. Therefore, I cannot understand why a target of 220 million tons is such an extravagant target, for we have not the slightest hopes of attaining it.
I come now to steel. My right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) said last week that there was a mystery about steel which it was most important to clear up. We had been told time and again about the magnificent performance of the steel industry by Members on the Government Benches, and it was then extremely disheartening to learn that the targets must be cut "owing to a serious shortage of steel." Why, if these records are being achieved, is steel short at the end of the year? The right hon. Gentleman at his Press conference emphasised the point slightly differently. We were told that the targets were reduced not so much owing to a serious shortage of steel, but


because the targets were unrealistic in the light of steel supplies likely to be available in 1948.
It seems that there was no mistake on the part of those in the industry but a mistake by the Government in adding up the sum wrongly in 1947. It is extremely important that we should note that that is where the failure lies, that we should remember that if ever we have to debate the question whether the steel industry is most likely to be run well by its present managers, or by the Government, it is the Government who added up the totals wrongly in 1947. We must not forget that the fault lies with the estimators, and not with the steel industry.
We now have a situation where steel supplies are 12 per cent. higher, while there is to be no increase in industrial output. Why? The first answer we are given is that it is because more steel is to be used in capital work, which will eventually enrich the country but which will not give us immediately consumable products for this year. So far as it goes, that is a perfectly sensible and intelligible point. On the subject of capital work I and most of my hon. Friends are what is called "middle of the way" men. I by no means associate myself with some of the extremists who tend almost to talk as if all capital work was an entirely unnecessary luxury, and that if men were taken away from capital work and put on to other work they would produce consumer goods immediately. But on the other hand, I do not associate myself with those who maintain that it is only necessary to demonstrate that something is desirable to prove that it should be done immediately.
There are many things we should all like to see done sooner or later, but which ought to be postponed at present. For instance, I do not suppose that any Member in any quarter of the House would deny that it is extremely desirable that, sooner or later, a statue should be put up to the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland, but it is much more questionable whether this would be a desirable time to divert labour into doing such a thing. In general, the point about diverting steel to capital work is an intelligible point, but when four times as much steel is being given to the basic industries as to the finishing industries, we are entitled to ask for further substantiation before we are entirely persuaded that that is a wise proportion. Is there not a

grave danger that at this time, when we are desperately short of finished articles, we shall not be able to produce enough and that we shall have the equipment to produce too many finished articles in a few years' time when we shall need them much less desperately? I wonder, too, whether the explanation that everything is going to capital works is a satisfactory explanation.
One of the great troubles about rationing and control is that once a commodity is rationed there is a natural tendency on the part of everybody to get hold of as much of that commodity as possible. Many of us never dreamt of buying chocolates and sweets in the days of non-rationing; now, we take our ration just because we think it is something to which we are entitled. There would he that danger under a system of control if the control was as wise as it could possibly be; but there is an even further danger in the present so-called system of control, when plans are changing with kaleidoscopic rapidity from day to day, when no manufacturer knows what he may be called upon to do or whether, when he is called upon to do something, he will have the wherewithal with which to do it. In these circumstances, it is a temptation—perhaps that is even a rather unfair word, so I will say it is "inevitable"—that people should take every opportunity to snap up and store all the raw material they can get hold of, even if they do not need it immediately. They will say, "There is no knowing when it will be needed." There is no doubt that in steel and other commodities increasing stocks are going out of use altogether.
It is enormously important that we should press ahead with a solution of the German currency question. There is a lot of scrap steel in Germany which must be moved to this country, otherwise there will be the gravest danger of unemployment. It is extremely difficult to get that moved until the German currency question is solved. I was questioning the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs about this the other day, and we should be glad to receive from the Government a statement as to the progress which has been made in this matter.
So much for steel; now about textiles, the target for which is to be stepped up. Some of my hon. Friends who have greater expert knowledge of textiles than


I have will follow me, and will, no doubt, make some searching and valuable contributions to the Debate. I must deal with pure generalities. It is obvious from the Economic Survey and the Minister's Press conference that the whole future of the export drive depends, more than anything else, on achieving the textile target. We view this matter with a good deal of alarm. Success depends, to begin with, on an enormous increase of labour in the textile industry, and there is very little possibility of the Government being able to satisfy this condition. In 1947 the labour force in the industry went up from 615,000 to 652,000. By the end of 1948, in order that the target should be fulfilled, it must be raised to 760,000. As yet we have had nothing like a definite account from the Government of how they hope that figure will be achieved. It must be achieved because we must realise how far short we are now running of the targets which the Government have set.
For instance, in the cotton industry the original target, the estimate of last September, was £11,300,000 per month. The target has been stepped up to £13 million, but the monthly average for January and February was only £8,500,000. So with woollens and worsteds. The original target was £11,300,000, and this has been stepped up to £12,400,000. The actual running target in January and February was a little more than half—at £7 million. There is thus an enormous gap to be filled, which it is extremely necessary to fill if the whole programme is not to fail. At present it is difficult to see how the Government propose to fill the gap. The Minister at his Press conference gave the new and ominous warning that overseas markets had reached saturation point for certain types of clothing and consumer goods. We were told some time ago that we could go ahead in textiles because there was a unlimited market. The import prices of raw cotton are causing grave concern. They have risen very considerably, and the possibilities of a further inflationary rise of prices in the United States will greatly increase our own costs of production.
The whole question of imports is giving rise to great concern. We had an adverse balance for the first quarter of this year of £126 million, but, according to the Survey, the forecast of the adverse

balance for the whole six months is only £87 million, and that is a matter for great concern. It may be true that March is a month of excessive seasonal imports. It may be true that the rise of American prices is purely temporary. There is this problem, as the hon. Member for North-West Hull (Mr. R. Mackay) has pointed out, of the terms of trade which has been responsible for so large a part of our troubles in the past, and which may be responsible for many of our troubles in the future. When American prices rose after the American Loan, the Government came to the House and explained that the Loan had run out because of the rise in American prices. They said that there was nothing they could do about that. Certainly, they were not responsible for it happening, but they were responsible for not having attempted to foresee it. I wonder whether we are not repeating that mistake of failing to perceive a coming rise in prices, which, if it takes place, will certainly make nonsense of all the export target figures.
Finally, some consideration should be given, even in planning a short-term policy, to the long-term picture of what sort of exports we can hope to make in the future. People say that we have to get through 1948 and then we can think again. There is a degree of truth in that. Nevertheless, it is nonsensical to build up our industries in one particular sort of pattern if that pattern is to become entirely irrelevant to the general picture of the world. The fact remains that predominantly in the future our exports must be quality exports. There is little with which we can supply the rest of the world which the rest of the world cannot produce for itself in some shape or form, but there is much which we can supply to the rest of the world which has a special quality of its own and which the rest of the world may appreciate.
If that is so, it carries with it the most important lesson which hon. Members should take to heart—the lesson against excessive economic Puritanism from the economic point of view. If our exports are quality goods we must also have an adequate home market for them. Firstly, we must have somewhere to "try it out on the dog"—to see whether the goods are useful or not. Secondly, to a large extent the only reason foreigners like our goods is that they like to have the sort


of goods which Englishmen have at home. Americans make hats for themselves, but an American likes to buy a Tyrolean hat because he feels that by doing so he is half way to being in the Tyrol. If an American was not sure that there was anyone there who wore a Tyrolean hat, he might think that there was no purpose in buying it back in America. It is entirely the same with all our goods. We cannot expect to produce good whisky for the export market unless we sometimes drink whisky ourselves at home. One of the most vital and important ways of helping the export market is to consume a reasonable quantity of whisky at home.

Mr. James Hudson: The trouble is that people do not know when to stop.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd (Mid-Bedford): That is better than not knowing when to start.

Mr. Hollis: Economic questions cannot be divorced from psychological questions. I would call the attention of hon. Members to the figures in the Gallup Poll quoted in this morning's "News Chronicle." I do not pay any special attention to precise statistics as given in Gallup Polls, but the general lesson of these figures is one of the most disturbing and disquieting things that I have ever come across. A poll was taken immediately after the war to find out what proportion of the people of this country wished to leave the country if they could. Immediately after the war, only 19 per cent. had that desire, but today 42 per cent, of the people of this country wished to leave it, if they possibly could. That figure is only exceeded by one other country in the world—Germany with 46 per cent. That is a very desperate and frightening thing, and it proves that the problems before us are not only economic but also psychological. I hope that we may have some assurance from the Government that there is a better hope of these targets being obtained than we can feel at present.

4.27 p.m.

Mr. Spence: I beg to second the Amendment.
I am glad to have the opportunity of following the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) on this Amendment, particularly so as he referred to the necessity of having a home market on which to base

our export trade. I have been looking at my notes, and that is note No.1 on which I wish to speak. I claim that the vital aspect of it is that the Government are not doing all that they could to help our export trade. I do not presume to lecture the Government on their political, doctrinnaire policy, but to deal rather with the faults of their administration. I hope that my remarks may be accepted in that light, as being suggestions which might be adopted and geared up with the ideologies upon which they are working.
One criticism which I have to make is that by having obsolete regulations and controls our maximum output of goods is not logged in the home market. Many of these controls have the effect of denying a home market to many goods for export. Secondly, by the legislative acts of the Government, the costs of our goods in the world market are being raised, until, eventually, they will reach an uneconomic level. Thirdly, the Government have failed to relate our export target to the, trade agreements which they are making with other countries. They are not relating the export target to the world market, and we may find ourselves in danger in the coming year of producing goods for which we have no outlet. Fourthly, the wrong goods are being exported. Goods are being exported which should be kept at home. Fifthly—and what is even more important—we are failing to bring home to the average working man and woman the extreme gravity of the situation by practical example, and we are not getting from our workpeople as a whole the output per head which we should be getting. I feel that very sincerely.
It is customary to disclose one's personal interest, and I disclose to the House that I am in the textile trade and an exporter. If some of my criticism concerns this facet of the export programme, I make no apology. I. quote the words of the President of the Board of Trade when he said a week ago:
One of the things on which we stand or fall as a nation this year is the success or failure of our drive for increased textile production and increased exports of textile goods."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th April, 1948; Vol. 449, c. 656.]
To deal with my first point about absolute controls and regulations, the old axiom


that an export trade can only be built up on a flourishing home market is as true today as ever it was. The effect of many of the regulations, especially those which concern utility textiles, is that the manufacturer making textiles has to have two production lines—one producing utility goods for the home market, and the other producing goods of quality and craftsmanship for export. A variety of bad results arise from that. The first is that it is difficult to build up new export markets. When we are developing a new export market at a long range, naturally we have to feel our way with our customers. If there is a production line going through the factory, the goods can be taken off it to satisfy early orders, which will enable the building up of connections for lasting trade. Where there is no outlet for export goods other than in the export market, this cannot be done.
No one is ever 100 per cent. successful. Orders may be booked and later on they may be cancelled. The man who is manufacturing goods for export, and who has his orders cancelled, cannot today find an outlet for them—they are frozen, they cannot be put on the home market except after a very lengthy process known as getting a declaration of frustrated export from the Board of Trade. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that it is a very long process, and that the only thing frustrated is usually the manufacturer.

Mr. Stokes: How long does this take?

Mr. Spence: About six to eight months. The final point on the question of obsolete controls is the bad effect of having two standards of workmanship in a factory. I do not say for a moment that utility articles are not good, but they were designed for a particular and specific purpose: they were designed to make the best of the very slender resources which we had in the war years, particularly with regard to labour. Although they may be good, they are definitely utility, and they are not the things which the overseas market wants. Today, in most mills we find two different set-ups—one, for utility and the other for export. The effect of present administration is even worse, for irrespective of the prewar record of many mills, all manufacturers are compelled to make a certain percentage or quota of utility

articles, irrespective of whether they are high-class or low-class manufacturers. This a vast waste of effort. I venture to say that if many of these regulations were lifted the result would be an increase and, in many cases, a cheaper supply of goods in the home market, as well as freeing more goods for export and getting a higher output generally.
I now pass to the question of our difficulties in selling goods abroad. The Economic White Paper refers to the saturation of markets, and says:
There are signs that in some of our most important markets it is becoming increasingly difficult to sell some of our products.
That is so, but it is not entirely due to saturation of markets; it is due to rising costs. I do not specifically refer here to the question of wages—high wages can be offset by high production; I refer rather to the direct and indirect costs which fall on every producer, including rent, rates, taxes, power, coal and transport. All these things have gone up progressively and it is chiefly in the realm of taxation that the Government are to blame, because they have continued to lay on the load, irrespective of the fact that at the end of the day the burden of taxation rests fairly and squarely on the back, or, rather, on the price, of our finished merchandise. We must realise the fact that, if rising costs continue, market after market will be closed to our goods and, whether we like it or not, we shall have to cut our coat according to our cloth.
On the question of markets for our goods, it seems to me that the Government have been far too casual in negotiating trade agreements. It is only common sense that if, with a centrally planned organisation, certain totals of different articles are to be produced, it is the duty of the planning authority to see that there are markets in which those goods can be sold. It is of no use to produce goods for which we do not have a market.
I propose to make one or two direct quotations which I think will prove my case that sufficient attention has not been given to the particular aspect of planning. My first quotation concerns the recently signed Danish agreement. Denmark has always been a very good market for British goods, especially textiles. I have traded with Denmark for many years, and I was naturally interested to find out as soon as I could what were the new


arrangements that had been entered into. I asked the Board of Trade what actual arrangements were to be made and in reply they said:
We did not in fact itemise our prospective trade for 1948 and did not, therefore, establish import quotas for particular goods, but we secured from the Danes an undertaking that in administering their import policy they will have regard to our normal pattern of trade.
That sounded all right, but I have also a letter from Copenhagen, despatched in the first week of April, from a big trader with whom I have dealt for many years. He writes:
We much regret to inform you that it is now known that the trade agreement recently established between our two countries does not provide for any import of men's clothing, hats or other made-up articles.
If that letter be true, then the Danes are not fulfilling the obligation that seems to be implied by the communication that I received from the Board of Trade. The fact that we did not specify what we expected from the Danes shows a certain casualness if our target for textiles has been raised by a certain percentage; but, surely, when our next trade agreement is being made, the thing to do is to say that we expect to have even more textiles to sell. That would be common sense and it is the way we should proceed. It has not been done, however, and towards the end of 1948 we shall have difficulty in finding markets for the goods for which we are setting up targets today.
In the trade agreement with Sweden, a strict price level has been imposed by the Swedish Government; nothing above a certain price is allowed into the country. That means to say that all our higher class products, which should show a far better conversion value in terms of raw material, are excluded. Of the new agreement with the Argentine, we do not as yet have very much information. I suggest, however, that this problem shows where central planning has broken down. If it cannot also provide the market, then it cannot provide a system on which to work.
I turn now to a matter which is very important to us in Scotland. I notice from "The Times" of Wednesday last that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had given a Press interview and had said this:
Commenting on the increased targets for cotton, woollens and worsteds, Mr. Wilson said there had been a world swing of fashion

away from tweeds and woollen piece-goods in general. The increases required in woollens and worsteds would be concentrated on wool tops and woollen yarn.
I hope that that is a correct record of what was said, because what I now wish to say is based on that assumption. The point I wish to make is this: if we find it difficult to sell tweeds abroad—and that is a thing with which I disagree—and if, instead of selling those tweeds abroad, we now sell the wool tops and the woollen yarn, what is going to happen to all the people in the weaving and hosiery trades? It depends on the degree to which this selling of tops and wool is to go on, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will deal specifically with this point, because great uneasiness has been caused.
There is the fact also that our yarns and wools are characteristic of this country. We have been selling textile machinery abroad at four times the rate at which we did in 1938. Now we are going to sell the raw materials to go on to those frames to make the characteristic materials which have been made by us in this country. We have not only given our competitors abroad the machinery, but we have given them also the lifeblood with which to run those machines and so enable them to undersell us with bogus British tweeds in the markets of the world. There is one other point. I do not understand why, if there is a swing away from piece goods and tweeds, there should still be a demand for wool tops and wool yarn. What are they going to be made into? If there is a market it means there is a market for someone who is going to make things more cheaply than we can and, therefore, the argument does not seem to me to hold water.
If we can produce finished articles in this country that system must have absolute priority. We should not deliberately sell articles which are part processed. The more we finish a product the better it will be for us, and I hope the President of the Board of Trade will deal with that point when he replies to the Debate this evening, because if we are going to give away our lifeblood we had better give away the factories and allow the work-people to emigrate rather than keep them on the dole. When we look at the monthly figures, we find that the wool tops figure has already gone up from a quarter of a million to over a million a month and for


yarn from a quarter of a million to half a million a month. In textile machinery, which is a matter of great concern to us, the figure has gone up from £700,000 to £2,900,000; the monthly figure has increased four times.

Mr. Stokes: Since when?

Mr. Spence: I am taking the 1938 monthly average figures and the 1947–48 monthly average. Finally, I want to refer to the question of a national effort. It is time our people—and by that I mean the ordinary man and woman in the street—realised how desperate the need is for more output, more work, and better value for money, not necessarily in wages but on what we bring in for ourselves, if we are not to become a pauper nation. The Government have missed opportunity after opportunity to bring this home. In speeches from the Front Bench the position is brought home, but when there is a simple opportunity in the country the facts are not rubbed in. This Government is never wrong. There is one instance of which I can think, namely, the Argentine agreement. That was put forward as a fine bit of commercial diplomacy, whereas it was nothing more or less than a hard bargain entered into by force of the existing critical circumstances. We should use these examples to bring home to the people the position in which we are, instead of issuing White Papers, which the average man does not read or understand; we should strive to get a realisation of how the individual can play a part in this great effort. I have made a number of suggestions which I hope will be considered. I do not presume to suggest that they cover any more than a small part of our problem, but I believe that, if they were acted upon and adopted, we should come nearer to fulfilling our export targets of 1948.

4.44 p.m.

Mr. Bottomley (Secretary for Overseas Trade): We all sympathise with the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis), who had good fortune in the ballot and who wished to talk on the subject of exports, if he has not got out of this the value he had a right to expect. The views which he expressed this afternoon must be considered, particularly one or two with which I shall deal, but I am bound to draw the conclusion that the hon. Member wants to have it both ways. To

give one illustration, he urged that we must push up exports in order to come nearer to a balance of payments and thereby avoid the economic difficulties which will arise if we do not. On the other hand, in the case of one or two commodities, he suggested that we ought to put more on the home market. He cannot have it both ways. He said also that unless we consumed some of the things ourselves, our reputation would suffer. That may be true, but it is correct to say that our past and present experience shows that our reputation stands good. I have a feeling that the hon. Gentleman does not delight in the skill and ability of the British people, and if he does not at the moment, I hope he will before the Debate ends.

Mr. Hollis: I did not pass any reflection on the skill and ability of the British workers in which we all take a pride. My argument had nothing to do with skill but with the necessity for them to have some of their goods so that they could test out what was palatable. I did not pass any reflection upon the skill of the workers but asked for the circumstances under which the skill could be developed.

Mr. Bottomley: Once again, the hon. Gentleman shows that he wants to have it both ways. If we are to overcome our ills we must export. The hon. Member for Central Aberdeen (Mr. Spence) spoke of central planning and asked whether this was the most efficient method. Last year, the Chancellor, when dealing with exports, said that the targets would have to be reviewed and revised. That has taken place. The hon. Member for Central Aberdeen said that there was not any consultation with industry, but I can assure him that there is. The production Ministries are constantly in touch with industry and the targets are adjusted as a result of that continuous consultation. The present target is fixed at 150 per cent. above the 1938 figure. It would be wrong to fix too high a target, because that would make for disappointment if we failed to reach it; and it would be wrong to adopt a target which could be too easily reached. We have fixed a target which we believe will be achieved by greater effort, and the evidence suggests that we can reach 150 per cent. For the last quarter of 1947 we had an average of


117 per cent. of the 1938 figures. In January it was 128 per cent., in February, 121 per cent., and in the month just ended the figure reached was 130 per cent. The reason the production for February was smaller was that there were fewer working days in that month. In view of all the circumstances, the figure of 150 per cent. is the right one.
The hon. Member for Central Aberdeen referred to the fact that we have had to reduce the target in some cases. That was because of steel. The target for the steel industry is high, but there is still a shortage owing to the concentration upon building of factories, providing equipment for the mines, and building ships, industries which we thought might he slackening off. There has, in fact, been a very large demand, and we have put the steel there as well as into the light and other engineering industries, in which we fixed a target which was higher than was possible. We have now reduced that target by 9 per cent. We expected somewhere about half the exports, 46 per cent. to be exact, to come from that category. When the September target in engineering was given it was expected that there would be savings on industrial building and capital equipment to enable us to attain that higher target. Experience showed us that that was not possible.
There also has to be a constant endeavour to send steel into productive industry. Very often hon. Members opposite have asked us why we should export such goods as textile machinery when it could be more usefully employed at home. In that connection we have been active. Some of the steel has gone into the production of textile plant which will be used for the purpose of producing textile goods, which we hope we can send overseas. It has been necessary therefore to revise the export of this commodity on that account. In September last, we did not have all the circumstances before us, and it would have been wrong to have fixed a target definitely. It was a provisional target. Everything had to be taken into account before we decided to change it.
I agree with the hon. Member for Devizes that it would be better to get more steel scrap from Germany. We are doing all that we possibly can to get it. Nobody would be more pleased than His Majesty's Government to overcome the

bottleneck which exists, and we shall try to do that. We hope that we can get to a position in steel which will enable us to reach the highest target when the next review takes place. The fact that there has been a reduction in the amount of steel available has affected the production of agricultural machinery and tractors, textile machinery, private cars and commercial vehicles. It is still important to remember that the machinery target is 206 per cent. above the figure of 1938, and the other targets are 260 or 255 per cent. above the volume in 1938.
What we have actually done in this connection is to reduce the amount of the exports expected from metal manufacturers generally from 46 to 44 per cent, of the total. I should like to pay a tribute to the industry for the high export figures they have reached, and to congratulate them upon that achievement. It has also been necessary to reduce the targets of goods which we find it not quite so easy to sell in overseas markets. Jewellery is no longer considered an essential commodity; nor are mechanical lighters and other miscellaneous goods. In spite of our pressing such goods in the bilateral negotiations that take place, we are having to reduce targets until we can adjust the situation.
Reference has been made to two particular countries, Denmark and Sweden. I had an opportunity recently of going to those two countries and of talking about the difficulties confronting us. When we are making bilateral arrangements we try to balance essential goods with essential goods. If we are compelled to balance less essential goods against less essential goods, we try to make sure that we send as many as possible of the traditional less-essential goods. In the case of Denmark, the feeling is that their butter, bacon and eggs are the highest class in those commodities. They wanted, in turn, that we should export our capital equipment and our coal and steel which are the most valuable goods that we have.
Last week I told the Danish Minister of Commerce and other members of the Danish Government that bacon, eggs and butter happen to be not quite in the same category as the essential goods that they wanted from us. I pointed out that unless some regard was had to the fact that the less essential goods that we have always supplied had to go into their


market, we might have to make some kind of schedule, and to say that unless they took those goods an agreement could not be concluded. We are very much alive to the points made by hon. Members. I hope that as a result of my personal intervention the Danish Government are under no illusion about where we stand in this matter.
Sweden has for a long time been in a favoured position. It is, therefore, inevitable that as soon as that country sees a swing in the opposite direction, she wants to put on all kinds of restrictions. In this case, I saw the Minister of Commerce and told him that to put on restrictions against British trade because there was a slight swing, and at the expense of less essential goods, when they were already getting our more valuable commodities, was undesirable. For the moment we were going to take the whole of their commodities, and the balance would then swing the other way, but we were intensely disappointed that import difficulties were being put in the way. I hope that, as a result of my intervention, there may be some relief for the industries which have been mentioned.
In connection with these bilateral deals it can be argued both ways as to what is the best form of trade. We have expressed from this side of the House the need for multilateralism. That must be our ideal. Very often hon. Members opposite have given the impression that the restrictions in foreign trade are the fault of His Majesty's Government. It may therefore be interesting if I give some examples of what the position was before 1938. I got this information from a very reputable banking journal.
I find that in 1938 the Argentine had a regulation to the effect that any subject who wished to buy goods abroad had to apply to the control board for a prior exchange permit, and then he could give his order for the goods. Argentine exporters were required by the law to surrender to the control board all exchange resulting from their sales abroad. It is from the fund thus obtained that the country's imports were paid for. I have here many other examples. I will cite one or two more. In Chile, exchange was granted only as it became available from the country's exports, and then in the order of (1) first necessities, (2) second-grade

goods and (3) non-essentials. In Denmark, essential raw materials were permitted free ingress. All other goods were subject to import licences.
These difficulties existed before the war. Nobody will deny, however, that the difficulties confronting the countries today are more acute. Because of that situation we have to go into battle armed in the most formidable way. We can truthfully say that each time we go into negotiation we go armed with material provided by the industrial organisations and by the excellent services inside the Board of Trade and other Government Departments. I would be prepared to match our methods now with those before the war and to say that ours now are on a higher level.

Major Haughton: In regard to the difficulties of our trade with the South American States, Argentina, Chile and Brazil, would the Minister say what the figures were in 1938, for textiles, despite the regulations which he has mentioned?

Mr. Bottomley: I cannot do so without notice. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will reply to the Debate and will deal with textiles. I am sure we have the information asked for, and my right hon. Friend will no doubt be able to give it. I could cite other similar regulations, but it is unnecessary to do so, as I think the point has been made.

Mr. Spence: Does not the Minister agree that in prewar years there were none of these particular difficulties? If one wished to export goods abroad, it could be done. There may have been such regulations, but everyone in the export trade knows that they were not strictly enforced. There was not great restriction, provided that certain regulations were complied with.

Mr. Bottomley: The position in 1938 was grave in some ways. It was because those countries had their difficulties that they had to impose those regulations. I do not think anyone will deny that if the difficulties which exist today had existed in 1938, the regulations would have been applied most rigidly. Bilateral trade negotiations are not new. They are something that we were compelled to face earlier and they would have been more difficult at that time had the general conditions not been easier. The present situation has been created by war. My right hon.


Friend will deal with this more fully. We must try to produce the kind of consumer goods and other commodities which these nations are prepared to take.
It is, therefore, most important that we should concentrate upon the goods that can be sold readily. I have referred to textiles. It is not only important that we should send out textiles for the purposes of our trade talks, but we also ensure that those goods go into the right markets from the currency point of view. Textiles are urgently required in Canada, and we can still get them into the United States, as well as other countries. In order to build up this production, we have resorted to the typical British method of appealing in a democratic way to management and workers. Only last Saturday the Lord President of the Council, the President of the Board of Trade, the Minister of Labour, and also the Minister of Education, who has a special connection with Lancashire, attended a very large meeting and stated that it was necessary that that kind of production should be developed. I am told that there was quite an enthusiastic response from that meeting. In another connection the hon. Member for Darwen (Mr. Prescott) made a similar appeal.
We are asking the management and workers in the textile industry to do all they can to force up the rate of production so that we can reach our target of 150 per cent. over the 1938 rate.

Mr. John Lewis: The hon. Gentleman said that an appeal is being made to the workers now engaged in the textile industry to increase their efforts in order that we may achieve our targets. Surely, he must be aware that it is useless appealing to people in the industry to increase their efforts when they can see 40 per cent. of the mill machinery standing idle because of the lack of workers?

Mr. Bottomley: We are, in particular, appealing to the workers to go back, and it is useful to know that many thousands of people who had gone out of the industry are now returning. I ask the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. J. Lewis) to add his appeal, as I am sure he has done, to the appeals of others to increase the number of recruits to that industry.
With regard to our targets, hon. Members may get some consolation in a note which has appeared in the "Financial

Times" in which some support was given to the view which I have stated that in only a minority of cases are there really grave doubts about our coming somewhere near the targets provided that no big unforeseen events intervene. I am glad to have that support. Our target is the right one and we hope to reach it; if we do so, it will enable us to go a long way to meeting the difficulties that confront us—

Mr. Hollis: Can the hon. Gentleman say what sort of labour target he has envisaged?

Mr. Bottomley: Perhaps my right hon. Friend will deal with that later.
In addition to dealing with targets, the hon. Member for Devizes also mentioned invisible exports. I share his view that they are most important. The Government are not lacking in their endeavours to build up invisible exports. In a recent Debate I talked about the endeavours of the British Tourist and Holidays Board to assist in getting more and more people to this country as a means of adding to our invisible exports. Last year the number of overseas dollar visitors was 75,000 and the dollar earnings were £5 million. This year there are the Olympic Games, and we are aiming at 500,000 visitors. We hope that there will be a very great increase in the dollar earnings as a result. Indeed, we should not aim at less than double the amount obtained last year.
The President of the Board of Trade has referred to the hospitable welcome that we shall give to visitors. Our own economic difficulties make it rather hard for us to give them the same standard of comfort and provision we did before the war, but visitors will find that we are not lacking in our characteristic warmth and hospitality even if we cannot always give the same material help. We hope that hotels, shops and entertainments generally will continue at the high standard which obtained last year—we have no reasons to doubt that that will be done—in order to encourage still further visitors. The Government themselves must do everything possible to encourage visitors. As I reported in an earlier Debate, we have released 94 per cent. of the hotels which were requisitioned for war purposes It is hoped to reduce requisitioning in other directions. We are


trying to proceed as speedily as possible, but there are national considerations which necessitate our retaining requisitioned premises until those considerations no longer apply. However, hon. Members will agree that the figure of 94 per cent. of hotels derequisitioned gives reasonable satisfaction.
We hope that the tourists will buy our goods. We hope that they will see them in the shops and that that will be some kind of inducement. To that extent we will make a show. If the visitors compete with the average British person, I expect that it will displease the hon. Member for Devizes, but to the extent to which we can get more dollars, the sooner will it be possible to put more incentive goods into the shops to satisfy our people. We have decided to make it even easier for visitors to get goods from our shops. They can go to certain shops for the goods, and if the goods are sent to their ship or aeroplane, the visitors will be released from obligations such as Purchase Tax and coupons. We also hope to give each visitor the opportunity to get a certain amount of goods without coupons upon production of a chit to a shop. We hope by this means to earn still further dollars and other currencies which are desirable—

Mr. Spence: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether this new arrangement will cut out the use of the form C.D.3 which has to be completed for purposes of Customs and Excise? The filling up of this form is the one fly in the ointment at the moment because it takes too long.

Mr. Bottomley: Visitors who go to the banks and get on their passport the necessary authorisation, will be able to go into the shops and get the goods they require, and that will do away with this form.

Mr. Stokes: On the matter of Purchase Tax, why will those people not have to pay as much as we do? Is it because they are so poor?

Mr. Messer: No, it is because we are so poor.

Mr. Bottomley: If the goods go to the ship—in the way we ship goods overseas—there will be no Purchase Tax on them. Shipping is a very valuable invisible

export, and the Government, realising its importance, decided long ago that we must do all possible to concentrate on shipbuilding. I would like to correct what has been stated inaccurately time and time again. I thought it was clear from what the Economic Secretary to the Treasury said earlier that we have not reduced the amount of steel allocated to shipping. What happened was that of the amount available, more was being consumed than could be spared. To that extent there has been a restriction, but there has been no reduction in the amount allocated for shipbuilding.
Last year the shipyards of the world launched 837 vessels of 2,111,886 tons gross. Of that output no less than 56.9 per cent. came from berths in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Of the world output last year of 2,111,886 tons gross, the amount launched abroad was 909,862 tons, and the amount from British berths 1,202,024 tons. Omitting comparison with world totals during the war years for obvious reasons, the British percentage of 56.9 compares with 53.3 per cent. in 1946, but the figure for 1938 was only 34 per cent., in 1935, 38.3 per cent. and in 1932, 25.8 per cent. So I think the Government can show that they have put great emphasis upon the need to develop again our shipping industry, recognising its great value as an invisible export, and we are rapidly making headway to overcome the great losses which we suffered during the war.
We have in mind, of course, that there are other invisible exports, and all of those are being considered. We should have made a handsome profit last year on insurance, had it not been for an unusual collection of accidents, particularly in America, but in that connection, thanks to the skill of the insurance companies, we are looking forward to an increased reward this year.
So I think I can say that on the question of target production we have not over-estimated and that I have shown we are on the road to succeeding. If we succeed, it will go a long way towards helping to overcome the economic ills confronting us. I have shown that we are not leaving alone the field of invisible exports, we are watching them, and pushing them and hoping that we shall get even greater rewards. The Government have reason to believe that


by their constant endeavours, by frequent debates—because one cannot talk too much about a good thing—we are concentrating attention upon the need for exports, for only by exports and getting in return the food and raw materials absolutely necessary to us, can we overcome our present economic ills. To the hon. Member for Devizes I say "Thank you for raising the matter," and I would again express sympathy with him for not having had the good fortune to get as much out of this Debate as he might have wished.

5.13 p.m.

Major Haughton: I hope in a minute or so to follow the Secretary for Overseas Trade perhaps a great deal more directly than he expected, as regards our overseas trade with the South American states; but to begin with I want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the President of the Board of Trade and the Lord President of the Council, all Cabinet Ministers, have within the last week drawn attention to the fact that the export of textiles is the spearhead of our drive to close the gap of overseas payments, and it is little wonder that I, with most of my interests in textiles, and as one who has served my time in the textile trade, stand here with considerable pride and say that I endorse every word they have said. I hope most sincerely that that drive by the textile trade for an increase in exports will succeed.
I had intended to quote what the President of the Board of Trade said last week, but it has already been quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen Central and Kincardine (Mr. Spence). However, I will quote, for a particular reason, what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in a remarkable message which he sent to the linen trade the other day. It was sent to the National Crisis Production Committee, which comprises representatives of the unions and the managements of all the textile concerns in Northern Ireland. He said:
Linen is by far the greatest element in the item which is described in the Economic Survey as 'other textiles.' Its true importance, which, I am persuaded, is well appreciated in Northern Ireland, is as a direct earner of dollars and other 'hard' currencies both now and for as many years ahead as can be foreseen.
He went on to say that the linen industry has given a good lead, and then he said

—this is the most interesting and remarkable part of his message—
the merchants have put themselves about to plan the production of goods appropriate for the most valuable currency markets and to make their products well known in all markets.
I am grateful to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for having said that, because there are merchant houses over there which have spent a great deal of time, money and effort in developing the presentation of this British merchandise.
Then we come to Saturday, when the Lord President of the Council had a great meeting, so we are told. He is reported as having said to the "People of Cotton," as he described them, that pretty nearly everything depended upon their efforts. I noticed that in his speech the President of the Board of Trade—I hope he meant this—referred to textile production, and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke about the production of goods
appropriate for the most valuable currency markets.
I am sure that when the Lord President was addressing that great meeting up North on Saturday he realised that he was addressing many workers, many spinners, many weavers and managements producing rayon in vast quantities as well as cotton.
It is well to realise that in Scotland and Northern Ireland there is a vast production at the present time of rayon in its different forms, as well as of the fabrics which are associated geographically with parts of these islands. We used to think of Dunfermline as a place which produced linen only, we used to think of Bradford as the place which produced woollens, and we used to think of Ireland as the place which produced linen only. Nowadays, however, these great textile districts produce a great variety of goods. It is about this great change and its importance in the export trade of which I want to speak because the Chancellor, time and again in this House when we have talked about the prices at which goods should be sold overseas, has made the point that it is by modernisation of machinery and by a better conception of management that we will produce more and reduce our prices.
In this particular realm, if the Chancellor will come to any of those areas of which I have spoken, he will find wonderful new mills, wonderful new factories and the most marvellous machines. It is


interesting that this new plant is producing an ever-increasing volume of goods at an ever lower cost, and that has to be taken into consideration because it is a plea made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and it is certainly a matter which the President of the Board of Trade must realise. So we have established two points: that the Government set great reliance on textiles in connection with the export drive, and also the comprehensive nature of the composition of the textile trade. In my opinion the third aspect is that we are up to the neck in a buyers' market. If the Government take in hand the controls, they have to come right down into the cold opposing currents of a buyers' market with those of us who are spinners, weavers, merchants, dyers and printers. It is all too easy in a sellers' market for the Government to exhort and talk about targets. To me they are like the members of a supporters' club waving, shouting and cheering, but what I want them to do in this House this evening is to come down on to the pitch and see how very small is the goal mouth into which we have to aim our shots.
The House will bear with me if I illustrate one or two of the difficulties which confront the textile manufacturer in present circumstances. First, I take the case of a rayon specialist whose yarns are spun and whose cloths are woven in Northern Ireland, but which are subsequently dyed, printed and processed in England and Scotland. I am glad to see the hon. Member for North Lanark (Miss Herbison) present, because I have some samples of these things with me and would like to show them to her later and get her opinion on these very beautiful prints. They are manufactured from something which is known as long staple rayon, which has a vast future of great potentiality to this country, and something in which we are specialising to a greater extent in Northern Ireland probably than in Lancashire.
America is specialising in a different type of man-made fibres, continuous filament, but for the moment this fabric, with linen characteristics, is being woven in great quantities in Northern Ireland. Over there we are using 25 per cent. of the total amount of the raw material output from which these goods are made. It is known as "fibro" and we spin from

it rather coarser and heavier yarns than are usually spun in Lancashire. The firm of which I speak participates in the periods in which the control is split—the four month periods—to the tune of a million and a half yards, which is no inconsiderable amount. This firm has to plan for many months ahead. Seven months elapse before the cloth emerges from the loom and at least three months are required for processing. So in this case the manufacturer has two long periods of eight months for which he must estimate.
In 1947 that firm shipped to Australia £300,000 worth of this fabric. In my view it was entirely justified in assuming that continuation of trade, but the bookings in Australia this year have been completely negligible. The reason is that the Australian Government have taken the subsidies off British merchandise and imports of rayon goods from America to Australia are exceedingly high. There was a very wet summer out there, in what is our winter, and although Australia is quite definitely our No. 1 market for that type of merchandise, with South Africa second, orders are absolutely nil. Other countries into which these imports are shipped are New Zealand, Belgium, Switzerland, Canada and small lots to the Scandinavian countries and the Middle East. Every country has been canvassed and every form of promotion has been tried, but at the moment while owing to the nature of the business it takes probably 10 months to produce, it is going to be very hard to sell.
I fear that unless we face realities and unless something is done the whole flow of production from the spinning mill and the weaving shed to the processer, the dyer, the printer, to the warehouse will be halted and a very serious situation will arise, causing dislocation and unemployment. I have already placed the facts of the case before the Board of Trade, and I wish to acknowledge the great courtesy and help shown by the Paymaster-General in submitting these facts and figures to the Board of Trade. Of course I am full of hope that I shall receive some satisfactory answer from the Board of Trade. But this is something which has to be faced and the Secretary for Overseas Trade spoke glibly as if it were a matter of production in order to get going in the South American market.
Let us take the case of rayon. Here is a fabric 36 inches wide and these beautiful prints are shipped at 54½d. a yard. The landing price in Rio today is 228d. Here I wish to quote from a letter from a Buenos Aires agent. The agent is dealing with the so-called Andes Agreement. I do not want to bore the House with a long citation. The letter says:
Two months ago the so-called Andes Agreement was signed by His Majesty's negotiators and the Argentine Government and from the bulk of the sterling available for Gt. Britain from the sale of railways"—
He is speaking for himself as an agent of textiles—
a sum of £10 million was earmarked for the importation into the Argentine within 12 months of the date of the Agreement for beverages, textiles and vehicles.
He goes on to say—it is pretty scathing, and I hesitate to read it out—
All this looked lovely when on board the Andes with champagne flowing, but apparently from this moment Miranda put in his machinery of obstruction…
I am sure the Board of Trade will not only work energetically but I sincerely hope your interests in general will be successful at last. It is now to full months since, for British textiles, this market has been hermetically sealed.
In face of reports like that from textile agents in the South American markets, how can we stand up and talk about targets? We have to get down to brass tacks. Not long ago some buyers came to see my friends in the textile trades. I can speak quite openly about this. They came with a certain amount of money to spend in European markets. They have always been particularly favourable to our own markets but, as a result of their trip, they bought merchandise in France. I am told that they were able to buy cotton ginghams in France—lady Members will know what cotton ginghams are—at a shilling a yard below those sold in Lancashire, made from Egyptian cotton. I could give illustration after illustration, but I will end with a warning to the Government and with a couple of suggestions.
America is greedy for and would gladly part with dollars for fibro, which is the raw material for rayon production in this country. The temptation for the Government to gather in a few million easily collected dollars by return of post must be very great. That temptation must be resisted, as otherwise the raw material for

our spinning frames and the yarns for our looms will have vanished. Nor must the mills be cut down in their allocation of fibro, just because they cannot immediately shift the stocks for the reasons I have given—because the markets abroad are closed. If these allocations are cut down the whole line of production in this country as regards textiles—and this is universal over all the geographical areas in which textiles are made—will be dislocated.
Finally, in this matter the controls are altogether too rigid. Here is an order issued by the Board of Trade on 6th April detailing minimum allocations to utility production, non-utility production, export production, so much per cent. of this and so much per cent. of the other. That is not the way a business firm would deal with matters. They would deal with the situation as they found it. Today, the controls are altogether too rigid and they must be made flexible. If they are made flexible the difficulties of the moment will be overcome. We must keep production going and we must keep our trade.
I ask whether the Chancellor and the President of the Board of Trade have got enough heart and enough sympathy to reorganise these controls for the moment so that these blocks of stock which cannot be shipped for the reasons which we all understand, can be shifted momentarily into the home market, where the housewife is longing to get these most desirable fabrics, for this, that or the other purpose instead of their being a clog in the whole machinery, tying up finance, running the risk of stopping production and breaking the heart of anyone who has anything to do with them. I make that appeal today and stress my point that the raw material upon which production depends shall not be shipped merely for the collection of a few easy dollars.

5.33 p.m.

Mr. Scott-Elliot: Like my hon. Friend the Secretary for Overseas Trade, I feel that the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) has done well to raise this important subject this afternoon. He will not expect me to agree with all he said; indeed, I was a little disappointed by some of his remarks. I am in complete agreement with him on the enormous importance of obtaining a German currency agreement as quickly as possible in order that shipments of steel scrap


can be sent over to this country. I would like to say a word about the speeches of hon. Members opposite generally because I am pleased to see the way in which they have addressed themselves to the subject. After the really deplorable speech delivered by the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) last week—I am sorry he is not in his place—one feels inclined to retaliate with a rather strong debating reply. I feel, however, that this is a matter of such moment that it should be approached in an entirely different manner from the way in which the right hon. Gentleman approached it. I, therefore, propose to restrain myself and to try to be as objective as possible, although I may have one or two things to say about the right hon. Gentleman's speech in the course of my remarks.
It is obvious to anybody that the overriding need both for exports and for everything else is that we must have more production at lower costs. That will achieve four objects. There will be more goods for export; there will be more for the home market, which will help to fight the inflationary tendencies with which we are faced. It will increase the national income and thereby allow the Chancellor of the Exchequer to decrease taxation in his next Budget. Finally, it will reestablish foreign confidence in this country That has been severely shaken by the fact not merely that we have been living beyond our means during the war, when it was obvious that we must do so; not merely that we have been living beyond our means in a period of transition during which we have been trying to get our industries back to a peace time footing; but that we have inherited a system from pre-war days, when under the Government which was controlled by hon. Gentlemen opposite we were then living beyond our means. In 1938 there was a substantial deficit in the overseas balance of trade, and we have never had a surplus since then. This is a very serious point, which I wish to make quite objectively. I believe that Members on both sides can help to get over to the country the fact that for 10 years we have been living beyond our means and that something must be done quickly in order that we may be able to look our creditors in the face.
We need more production. When we look round to see how to do that we

immediately run into the difficulty of what kinds of production we can increase, because there are shortages everywhere. There are three kinds of shortages. There is a shortage of productive capacity, as in the case of steel, of certain kinds of chemicals such as sodium compounds, and also very possibly of ball bearings. In addition to the shortage of productive capacity, there is shortage of materials affecting those industries which use steel and so on. Finally there is a shortage of labour, which affects the consumer goods industries as a whole, in particular the textile industries, with the possible exception of worsted, in which I believe there is a shortage of capacity rather than an excess.
Let us get a little deeper down into this problem. It may be said that this is due to a war-distorted economy. That is true to some extent, but that is an oversimplification of the case. I believe that our economy before the war was to some degree lopsided, and I will give my reasons for saying that. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot made a tirade against Government planning the other day. It seems to me that there has been some very poor planning in the past, otherwise we would have capacity for making steel that was commensurate with modern requirements. What did we do before the war? We had a capacity similar to what we have today. At the same time, we depended upon imports from the Continent for cheap grades of steel. Instead of going in for low cost production this country depended upon cheap steel imports from the Continent of Europe, which fact is recoiling upon us to a serious degree.
I think I am right in saying that in the semi-boom year of 1937 we had insufficient steel capacity, certainly not a sufficient amount of efficient steel capacity to fulfil the needs of that year. We need more steel capacity like the great project set up by Richard Thomas at Ebbw Vale before the war. I believe I am right in saying that it is the most efficient rolling mill in Europe and is producing sheet steel today at a price at which nobody else in Europe can touch.

Mr. Stokes: Or America either.

Mr. Scott-Elliot: That may be so, but I do not know. Why could we not have gone in for producing steel in exactly the same kind of way? I believe that that was perfectly possible. I do not wish to


labour the point but hon. Members will be very well aware of what happened when Sir William Firth found he had over-estimated the cost. What happened was that the Iron and Steel Federation clamped down on that undertaking, put it in a kind of strait jacket and forced it to sell steel at prices far higher than it need have been sold.
Turning to chemicals, I believe that it is correct to say that we are using the capacity in this country for producing sodium compounds to the utmost, and yet we are terribly short. Why is that? I think it is a matter for research and inquiry. I do not propose to go too far into this matter, in view of the Bill which is coming before the House on Thursday, when I hope, Mr. Speaker, I shall have the opportunity of catching your eye and discussing the matter more fully. I venture to suggest to hon. Members that it is because of the grinding monopoly of the Imperial Chemical Industries which has in the past sought by every means in its power to discourage the production of sodium compounds by other firms in this country.
With regard to ball bearings, it is alleged—I may be wrong, and speak subject to correction—that they are in short supply and that this is hindering production. Before the war there were three major establishments in this country for the production of ball bearings. We used also to import a large amount from Sweden. During the war several dispersal factories were set up in different parts of the country. One of them in the West of England is still, to my knowledge, surviving. There was a large establishment in Dundee, which I believe has been abandoned, and also one in Northern Ireland, the fate of which I do not know. I feel that this is a matter for very careful inquiry. I know that ball bearing manufacturers allege that they are producing all that is wanted, but it is a matter of producing the right kind of ball bearing. As hon. Members may know, ball bearings can vary from something weighing two tons down to something about the size of a pin head. Therefore, it is necessary to produce the right kind of ball bearing and have it available for the people who want it.
Reverting to the question of target cuts, there has been the cut, to which the hon.

Member for Devizes referred, in the machinery and vehicles target, due to the shortage of steel, because we cannot produce sufficient steel in this country, and we cannot procure it elsewhere. I wish to ask one question. Is the cut in agricultural machinery an overall cut, or are supplies being diverted from exports into the home market? It is a very important matter to agriculturists. A very large cut has been made in the export target for particular agricultural machinery. I believe I am right in saying it has been cut by about half.
What is to be done to make good these cuts? We have to step up textile exports and in particular send cotton piece goods to Canada, because the bulk of our food comes from there, and we have to send them also to the sterling area in order to replace American shipments and thereby save dollars. There is great need for further production in the industry. As a long-term question we obviously have to put in more up-to-date machinery, but that is a long-term issue and there are very great difficulties to prevent it happening for some time. Therefore, we have to look to the short-term question. How can we, from a short-term point of view, increase quickly the output of textiles, and cotton goods in particular? That can be done by putting in additional labour and by the re-deployment of the workers.
So far as labour is concerned, there has been a steady but slow increase in the labour force for both the spinning and weaving sections of the industry, but there is need to convince people in Lancashire that the cotton industry has better prospects than in the past. There are far too many people in Lancashire who still say that they do not wish to see their children going into the mills. I would like to testify to the excellent work done by the Cotton Board and by Mr. Gray of the Recruiting and Training Department of the Cotton Board in getting the parents in Lancashire to recognise that the cotton industry has a future. The input of juveniles is going up steadily, and I believe that he is putting over the right idea, especially that there are going to be entirely different standards of wages and conditions in the industry in future.
It is just as important to get in workers from overseas—E.V.W.'s and German workers who, I hope, will be coming in presently. It is important that the Government should get over to the people of


Lancashire the safeguards which have been negotiated with the unions in this matter. I put a Question on the subject to the Minister of Labour not very long ago, and he rather turned it aside, saying that every one knew all about it. They do not know, and they are still apprehensive in Lancashire. Complete agreement has been reached between the Government and the unions that no more than a certain percentage of workers from the continent of Europe will be imported, and the fullest possible safeguards have been made, in the event of redundancy, for the foreign workers to go out of the industry. That is a point which ought to be put over to the people in Lancashire and I hope that the President of the Board of Trade may refer to it in the course of his speech.
As for re-deployment, it will increase output, increase the workers earnings, thereby bringing more workers into the industry, and finally it will reduce costs. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I attended a conference at Buxton last autumn to which a great deal of publicity was given. At that conference the Shirley Institute produced a paper, which we discussed for the whole of one morning, showing that if all the mills could attain the average of efficiency of the best 25 per cent. the output of yarn would be increased by no less than 20 per cent. That figure, events have proved to be, in certain conditions, an under-statement. The House will be aware of the experiments which have recently been carried out in the Musgrave Mill in Lancashire, where, as a result of re-deployment and the putting into force of motion and time study, the actual output of yarn has been increased by no less than 4o per cent. and the earnings of operatives have increased substantially at the same time. That is one example of what the spinning industry in this country can do. Similar things can be done in cotton weaving and other textile industries and in engineering. Today time does not permit, but I hope that on some future occasion I may have the opportunity of addressing the House on this tremendously important question of industrial efficiency.

5.49 p.m.

Mr. Edgar Granville: I agree with the hon. Member for Accring-

ton (Mr. Scott-Elliot) that we are grateful to the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) for having initiated this discussion. The more we can have of these Debates on this vital topic of exports the better it will be for the Board of Trade, whom everyone will admit has an extremely difficult problem to solve. It helps to keep them up to their job. I think that the President of the Board of Trade is doing his best to solve this problem, which is a changing problem the whole time and which we hope, that, as the hon. Member for Accrington said, more people in Lancashire will be able to help solve. I hope that a good many of them listened to the broadcast speech yesterday of the President of the Board of Trade, because I think he put the case very clearly. Perhaps the opportunity will be taken for a repeat of this speech, which was one of the best of its kind, setting out the whole problem. My only qualification for taking part in this Debate is some contact with the export market. I was a little surprised to hear the hon. Member for Devizes say that he thought the sellers' market was diminishing. I should have thought that the sellers' market was absolutely finished.

Mr. Stokes: In what way?

Mr. Granville: On consumer goods and certain types of capital goods. There was a period after the war when there was a glut export of consumer goods, some of inferior quality, all over the world. I should have said that that period had gone in most of the old competitive markets, and that we were now in a position when price and quality will he the determining factors. I believe it would also be true to say that the exporters' backlog of orders is rapidly disappearing. After the war manufacturers and exporters had, of course, a very big backlog of orders, as the hon. and gallant Member for Antrim (Major Haughton) said, but I think they have caught up on that, and are now taking current orders. That is where the difficulties begin.
I am sure that the Secretary for Overseas Trade must know that today there is a tendency for importing countries to make cancellations left, right and centre, and the lists of goods upon which licences are given are getting smaller and smaller. Even the quota lists, from which a quota of the goods imported before the war is


allocated, are getting seriously smaller. When the President of the Trade replies, I hope that he will tell the House, and manufacturers and exporters, something of the facts. From what one hears and sees when visiting importing countries the lists of general consumer goods which can be imported into most importing countries have been decreasing steadily, until they are now extremely small, and exporters in foreign markets find it more difficult than ever before to obtain import licences for their goods upon which irrevocable letters of credit are issued. The right hon. Gentleman knows the reason, which is shortage of currencies due to adverse balance of payments. I am afraid that the importing countries just have not got the currencies. The trade departments in those countries have to discriminate; they have to use their available currency, which is short—perhaps because of their adverse balance of trade—and issue licences for those goods which they simply must have. For us this is serious in the hard currency areas, and that, frankly, is where the trade agreement comes in. Our problem is to see that we use the maximum production of raw material and manpower available in this country so that we can send our exports to those countries from which we must import our raw materials and food.
While the Marshall Plan will help—in that it will give credits to those importing countries which at the moment are standing back and wondering what will happen—as the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) will agree, it will also help them to import and to establish the manufacture of important capital goods in their own countries—with, I hope, our technical help and "know-how." But all of those countries which will benefit from the Marshall Plan are short of steel. I suppose they, as well as others, are shorter of steel than of almost anything else. And, of course, they are all looking to us to try to export some coal.
The hon. and gallant Member for Antrim referred to the attempts of the Government and the Board of Trade to increase textile production for export to dollar areas. For two years we have been saying, "Export Bradford wool and Lancashire cotton to Canada and America —the dollar markets." I say to the Government: "You must have a special plan for that, because I think you are now a bit late." I know that the Board

of Trade have been working very hard on this problem, but, frankly, its approach is too late, and I will tell the Government why.
The hon. and gallant Member for Antrim referred to the export of rayon to the United States. What is the position in the United States and Canada when it comes to importing worsteds, cotton and so on? The salesman calls upon the buyer and says, "I want to sell you some very good Bradford cloth." The American or Canadian buyer asks, "When can you deliver?" The salesman says, "I think seven months"—or nine months, or even a year. The buyer will say, and is saying, "I can get it delivered immediately from mills in America. It is not of the same quality as the British cloth, but I can get it by return, and I know now what the delivery price will be." But they do not know the price which will be operating when the British goods are delivered, because all kinds of factors have to be considered.
Some of the well-established British exporters are exporting British quality textiles to warehouses in dollar markets so that the salesman in those markets can call upon the buyers and say, "I have the goods. You can come and see them in the warehouse, if you like. They will be delivered tomorrow, and you can see the samples now." I think that the Board of Trade have tried very hard to remove controls. I am sure that the Board of Trade have tried to give the utmost freedom to producers, manufacturers and exporters here, in this emergency problem, but I wonder what effect the general cancellation of licences will have? A little while ago the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that it might be necessary for manufacturers and exporters to send the goods to our own docks and leave them there. If this situation develops, I wonder whether the Board of Trade will not have to assist with a scheme whereby exporters to those countries can export the goods to warehouses and our salesmen can sell direct from actual supplies in the warehouses? Maybe the Board of Trade have given this serious consideration, but I know that some exporting firms are doing this, and I hope that the Government will give all the assistance they can, by means of credit and other methods, to enable this to be extended as far as possible.
I turn now to quality. I do not think that we can compete with the United States automatic looms, or mass production, and I do not think that we ought to try. Because of the war, of course, this country suffered a big blow to its trade, and I could not help thinking of that when the hon. and gallant Member for Antrim was telling us of the splendid efforts that are being made to try to repair the damage done. But we ought not to try to compete with the United States automatic looms or cheap fabrics. My own opinion and most people's experience show that it would be better to concentrate on quality goods, because if we export Yorkshire and Lancashire quality goods to the United States they will take all that we can deliver, provided we give them firm deliveries and at the right time. We are well known for quality cloths and get good prices.
The question of new designs is also important in competitive markets, and many new designs and ideas are appearing, and will appear if encouraged. Who is responsible for allocating raw materials to new firms which have a new design or idea which will assist the export trade? What is the position today? Is the allocation kept entirely to those firms which were manufacturing and exporting before the war? Does that mean that new firms with new ideas cannot get in? Let us suppose that a new firm can produce goods with a minimum of wool yarn which will produce the maximum dollar exports. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us who is responsible for the allocation of yarn quotas? Is it his own advisers at the Board of Trade? If so, I am satisfied, because that is a fair deal; or is it from the trade?

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Harold Wilson): If the hon. Gentleman will give me full details of the particular materials he is talking about, I will tell him, but, of course, it will be a different answer in the case of different materials.

Mr. Granville: I quite appreciate that, but I had informed the Secretary for Overseas Trade and given him some details about this. I appreciate that we want to get the maximum exports for the wool we are using, but I would say, for heaven's sake do not shut the door to new ideas and new designs which would

help us in the competitive market against the United States. Before the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade came in, I said that he has tried extremely hard to take off controls, and that is recognised in the industry itself. I would like to ask whether our consuls or commercial attachés abroad have any special responsibility for informing his Department as to the exact conditions in foreign markets as they change from time to time. Are our producers here given the latest, up-to-date information about those markets by our commercial attachés?
Finally, I want to say—and I am sure the hon. Member for Ipswich will agree with me—that we are all worried about the consumers goods export market. Frankly, we have got to switch to capital goods as soon as we can. That means a tremendous operation, possibly even more controls during the change in manpower and materials, and all that that means, a planned economy, and planned exports; but whatever it means, I think that, in the end it comes down to this currency shortage throughout the world, and the tendency of all importing countries to restrict their consumer goods imports. The sooner we face up to the fact that this is not short term, the better. If we are to close the gap and pay for our imports, we shall have to get new plans and concentrate more on capital equipment and good quality exports. I congratulate the President of the Board of Trade, because I think he is doing a good job at an extremely difficult time in facing a changing problem in changing markets. We wish him every success in this extremely important task.

6.3 p.m.

Mr. Stokes: Like the hon. Gentleman who opened the Debate, I do not propose to occupy the House in reviewing again all we have reviewed in the past few weeks, but there are one or two points I should like to make. I suppose I ought to take up the argument where it was left by the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. I was surprised to hear him saying that the whole situation has now changed over into a buyers' market. While that may be true of one range of goods, I do not think it is by any means true over a very considerable range of capital goods and raw materials, which are the two


fundamental parts of our problem of the export trade.

Mr. Granville: I said it was mostly in consumer goods.

Mr. Stokes: Yes, I understood that, but the House also understood that the sellers' market was rapidly disappearing, and that was, in fact, endorsed by the junior Member for Antrim (Major Haughton), who started off in the most optimistic mood, and I felt much better. I have always felt that the export targets set for textiles were absolutely "cuckoo." The hon. and gallant Gentleman said he welcomed what the President of the Board of Trade, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Lord President of the Council had said, and I supposed that he meant that the production quotas could not be maintained, but he suddenly turned round and said that he did not know where on earth to get rid of the stuff. He did not use those words, because the hon. and gallant Gentleman has not got my rapid slow of cockney, but that is the effect of what he said. It is, as the hon. Gentleman has just said, and I have believed for a very long time, that the market for consumer goods, even textiles, is going to close in on us, and we shall have the greatest possible difficulty in closing the gap by that range. I believe that the only way in which that gap can be closed is by capital goods, steel and coal. If we can get coal up to 4i million tons, I think we are practically home, and I hope that that will be emphasised on every possible occasion by my right hon. Friend.
The matter that troubles me most, and it was raised in the first instance by the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis), is what has happened about our steel. I have been astounded at what has happened in the last few days, concerning Ministers' statements, which have caused a good deal of bewilderment in the trade. In 1947 our output of steel was 12.7 million tons. The target for 1948 was fixed at 14 million tons. In January and February of this year, according to newspaper reports, which appear to be authentic, the rate of output was 15 million tons. What on earth has happened to it? Here we are, after indications by the trade that we were doing all right, and now we are told that the target will have to be cut. How does my right hon. Friend explain that to any manufacturer who has planned

his output and who is now to be told that we shall not have enough steel for our 1948 targets. Is it that more steel is being exported, or that more steel is being switched into the armaments industry? If so, it is most important that we should be told what is the Government's view.
I take it that one of the possible difficulties is scrap from Germany. On this I have a suggestion to make. At present, we send barges full of coal from the Ruhr down the Rhine to Antwerp and other North Sea ports, but all the material coming into Germany has to go to Bremen and has then to be transported to the Ruhr on an incapacitated railway transport system. Could not something be done with the idea of getting our friends across the Atlantic to have their imports to Germany sent to Antwerp? At present, the barges are going back empty to fetch more coal from the Ruhr when they might be taking some of these imports back with them. Shortage of locomotives is the real difficult part of the transportation of scrap from Germany. The real trouble is not the disinclination of the Germans to sell it, but the fact that the rolling stock is not there, so that, even if we had it, we cannot cart it away.
To turn to the question of capital improvement, though I do not pretend to know the figures on which the Government are working in insisting on the necessity for restricting capital improvements, I feel some alarm about what is going on in the machine tool industry. It may be that it cannot be helped and that it is necessary at present to increase the amount of machine tools sent abroad, but the figures which I am going to give really ought to cause hon. Members some concern. In 1947, we exported from this country 44,023 machine tools, worth, approximately, £13,690,994. During the same period, we imported 7,769 machine tools of a value of £3,991,791. We sent abroad fro million worth more of machine tools than we imported. That may be all very well for the export statistician, but it does not seem to me to be doing the industry any good. The situation is getting worse, not better, because, in January, 1948 the export of machine tools was 4,164, or a total value of £1,362,006, and, if we go on like that, our exports this year will be nearly £3 million more in 1948 than they were in 1947. Imports in January were 396 machine tools at a total value of £276,000, which is about £r million less.
What about the poor engineering industry? We are getting into a frightful state. To start with, many of us have depended on Germany for getting some of our bigger and heavier tools and, owing to the insane policy which has been followed in the Rhur and elsewhere, many of the factories on which we depended not only for the tools but for the spare parts have been pulled down. In the case of the four Schiess Defries factories, they have been pulled down simply from French jealousy. The extent to which this country depended on Germany for its machine tools was enormous. My right hon. Friend may say that the tools can be built here, but I doubt whether that can be done in the time. I hope my right hon. Friend will look into this matter, because if that trend continues, we shall be left in a very bad state.
Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that we are getting enough for our capital goods? I have been raising this point for some time, but I never get a satisfactory answer. We hear, "You must not make too much profit." I do not think that is necessarily a good directive when dealing with exports and trying to fill the gap. I know perfectly well that there are certain classes of textiles the prices of which have to come down, but the same does not apply to capital goods. I am certain from my own examination of the markets with which I am in contact, that the particular type of products with which I am concerned could fetch about 15 per cent. or so more, but nobody has been told to charge more. We have been told in a general way that we should get as much as we can, but it is no use telling people to get as much as they can, and at the same time tell them that they must not make any money because if they do so, they will be naughty boys.
I am not suggesting that manufacturers should put too much money into their pockets—I am perfectly willing that some of the money should go back to the Chancellor—but this has a psychological effect. No manufacturer wants to charge more than he absolutely needs beyond his balance sheet policy, because he knows that the cheaper he sells abroad, the more likely he is to maintain his markets. Why should he charge 15 per cent. more if he is going to be cursed for doing it so far as the Inland Revenue authorities are

concerned, when by charging less he can assure his export situation in the future? Nobody has said that that point of view is wrong, and I hope my right hon. Friend will assure me on this point tonight, because I am sure it will do a lot of good. I do not say that he should shout from the housetops that we should "rook" the foreigners, although some of them are "rooking" us all right.
I would like my right hon. Friend himself, or with the Minister of Labour or the Lord President of the Council, to make some pronouncement about labour restrictions. I am talking particularly about foreigners. Everybody got the wind up when the White Paper announced, as it was quite right to announce, that in the absence of Marshall Aid there would be some difficulty in keeping all the workers of this country employed. That was headlined in the papers. Naturally it was taken out of its context by the Tory Press. They cannot be blamed for doing that. We should probably have done the same the other way round, if we had had the chance, But it had a very bad effect. Everybody felt that we were right up against it. People said, "We have now got enough work to do; let us go slowly, do not let us get foreign labour in or we shall have unemployment." The ordinary man in the street does not understand the situation. I would like my right hon. Friend or the Prime Minister to make a statement explaining that the fear of large scale unemployment is off for the moment.

Mr. Granville: The President of the Board of Trade made a very effective broadcast about it yesterday.

Mr. Stokes: I am glad he did, but it does not necessarily follow that everybody listened to the broadcast. I do not listen to the wireless any more than I can help. I think the right place for such an announcement is in this House, and if the right hon. Gentleman repeats his statement on this point tonight, it may put matters straight. We have got lots of these foreign volunteers in this country who cannot come into industry. What ought to be impressed upon the workers of this country is that if we do not succeed in making a real "go" during these three or four years in front of us by employing every single man we can lay our hands on, large scale unemployment is before us four years


hence. That point ought to be emphasised.
Now I come to my overall conclusions. The first point is that the reason why we are in the "jam" in which we are, is that all through the war nobody had the slightest idea what we were fighting for. They knew what we were fighting against, but they had no idea what we should do when peace broke out. That is at the bottom of all our troubles. It led to all sorts of nonsense. All through the war people were wondering what would happen afterwards, and, of course, the moneylenders "got cracking" first. What my right hon. Friend ought to realise now is that people naturally expected that we should have a bit more when the war ended than we had when it began. In fact, they were told so by politicians of every party. My first point of emphasis is that we should allow more consumer goods to the home market. This would help to avoid inflation —that is an obvious effect—and it would stimulate output.
What the hon. Member for Central Aberdeen (Mr. Spence) said just now is so true. It is no use saying, "Let us wait until we see whether the goods are thrown back on the market." We know that a lot of this stuff is coming back on us, but when it is thrown back it is not released. There is a "jam." There is an ugly constipation in the Government departments, and it continues for eight months before the goods are released. Will my right hon. Friend see that the machinery for releasing goods which are not sold immediately on the export market, works quickly so that we can have the immediate advantage of stimulating production by offering more goods to the workers in this country? They will not work to save money. Sating money does not mean anything any more. People see the pound wandering around all over the place, and say, "What is the use of saving?" Men will not save in the present circumstances. I need not continue with that theme, because I have raised that point several times before.
Secondly, psychologically this conception of putting money first, instead of goods, is wrong. Again I have dealt with that point before, and will not detain the House to repeat it today, except to this extent that the London School of Economics nonsense of "too much money chasing after too few goods" is all

very well for those people who call themselves economists, but it is absolute nonsense and psychologically wrong to the ordinary working man. He says, "If there is too much money chasing too few goods I had better not earn too much money, because it will make things worse." The right approach is to impress upon everybody, not that there is too much money but that money does not matter and what matters is output. The people should be told, "What we want is more goods, and if you produce more goods you can have a share of them." Of course, if we say that to them we have got to give them some goods. It is no use offering them money which they cannot spend on goods.
In a broader sense may I emphasise to my right hon. Friend and to the Secretary for Overseas Trade that bilateral arrangements are of no earthly use in the long term. I shall not go into that point, because I have already done so. We want a wider area of mutual exchange in Western Europe—an economic union. I am not a federal unionist; I think it is ideal but it is too far away. We want a Western Economic Council to start with. During the war, when I could get anybody to listen to me, I always advocated that when the war ended Lend-Lease should be continued. Lend-Lease is really giving away your surpluses. In war-time we did it willingly, because we thought that by beating the enemy we would be better off. In peace-time it should be possible to follow the same policy. I agree it may not apply so much to us here but generally the nations of the world, like ourselves and the Americans who are capable of producing, must not measure wealth in the ridiculous monetary symbols but in terms of goods that can be produced.
In summing up, I would refer the House to a letter written and published in "The Times" on 21st December, 1940. It was signed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Archbishop of York, the Moderator of the Free Church Federal Council and the Archbishop of Westminster. Some of them are now dead, but I am sure the present holders of those offices would sign the same letter. The tenth point of that remarkable letter—of which no notice was taken in this House, and very little in the country—said that the raw materials of the world must be used as God's gifts to


the whole human race. I would take it further by saying that unless we get clean out of our system this idea that we have to add up figures all the time and make things balance we shall get nowhere.
Christ had to chase the moneylenders out of the Temple and we shall have not only to chase them out of London—we have half done that, but we shall do even better yet—but out of Wall Street, before we get nearer to the peace and plenty which the world and all mankind has a right to expect.

6.22 p.m.

Mr. Odey: It is not an easy matter, as a comparative newcomer to the House, to follow the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) with all the fluency and cogency that he has at his command, but I would like very strongly to support the view which he has expressed, that there is only one cure for inflation, and that is an adequate supply of consumer goods in the shops. It is the only way to provide the incentives which the workers of our country need and require if they are to give us that additional production which ultimately is the only cure to our ills.
This question of export targets varies very much in different industries. There are some industries where the sellers' market is not yet finished, but there are other industries where the sellers' market has entirely finished. I would like, if I may, to examine the reasons in one particular industry with which I am acquainted—the leather and footwear and allied industries, industries in which, I may say, I have taken an active and intense part in the export drive, beginning from 1940. Through the war years, for obvious reasons our export drive in these goods was one long story of frustration. Our export trade was practically killed. Leather was a material which was in short supply and it was not possible to maintain, let alone develop in any shape or form, our export trade.
When the war finished, we at last hoped that steps would be taken which would enable that export trade to be revived. Today we have reached the stage where the supplies of leather in the country, in general, are quite adequate. By and large, we have in the country today a very adequate supply of leather, but it is an astonishing thing that, having

at long last reached this stage, our export trade has almost entirely disappeared. What are the reasons which have brought about this remarkable state of affairs?
The first point is this. Our export trade in leather, in boots and shoes and manufactured leather goods, went very well until the end of 1947, and one of the reasons was that during that time there was a very heavy subsidy on leather, as the President of the Board of Trade knows. That subsidy enabled many manufacturers to export leather, and goods made from leather, at prices which were in point of fact a loss to the nation. They were an actual loss. I know full well that it will be argued that it proved impossible from an administrative point of view to collect that subsidy, and therefore the exports had to go out subsidised. Be that as it may, the fact remains that many of these exports, as I have already said, were a loss to the nation, and in point of fact were no contribution at all to our problem of the balance of trade.
Now what happens? At the end of 1947 this large subsidy is withdrawn, and withdrawn overnight, and now the industry begins to feel the full effect of the Government's bulk purchasing of supplies. The position is that the tanners in this country at the present time are being supplied with heavy hides at a price of is. 6d. a pound when twice within the last 12 months the North American market has been down to the level of is. As a result, tanners in this country are not in a position to compete with North American tanners.
The President of the Board of Trade will ask what is the solution to this problem. The solution which I would like to see applied—and hon. Members opposite are always putting the question to us, "What controls would you do away with?"—is that the Leather Control should be abolished, for the simple reason that it has entirely outlived its usefulness. If hon. Members opposite suffer from the delusion that the continuance of controls, such as the Leather Control, keeps prices down, I would like to say that in my view the effect is entirely the opposite, because I have no doubt that the next step that will be taken will be to say, "We have an adequate supply of leather, we will now reduce the import of hides and recreate a scarcity."
The result of the recreation of that scarcity is to continue to eliminate all competition amongst home manufacturers. As a result, to all intents and purposes, we are encouraging manufacturers in this country to work on a guaranteed profit margin. If the President of the Board of Trade would open the door to a reasonable measure of competition and let the fresh air blow into this situation, I am convinced that he would very soon see an alteration in the price level. As it is, in this industry, as in industries up and down the country at the present time, manufacturers are getting increasingly into a position based on cost-plus. I say that in the long run it will wreck our economy, and will prevent us from obtaining and retaining our proper share of the world's export trade.

6.31 p.m.

Mr. Follick: I think I agree with what the hon. and gallant Member for Antrim (Major Haughton) said about the sellers' market, that it is very rapidly declining. People are getting far more "choosey" about the goods they buy. They do not snap up everything as they did a year or 18 months ago. They want quality today, and they are very interested in prices. As this tendency develops we shall have to see, not where we can push our goods in quickly, but where we can establish definite and permanent markets. Up to now—and even now we are doing so—we have been pushing out our exports to bring in dollars. The term "exports" seems to be synonymous with "dollars." We are told over and over again that we must earn dollars, and that to get the dollars the majority of our exports must go to the United States.
I have recently visited a part of the world which is not discussed very much in this Chamber. I have been to the 12 Republics of the Caribbean. Altogether there are between 6o million and 70 million people in that part of the world. That is a very large aggregate. Those people are very definitely drawn to this country, and would give us every possible preference to do business with them. At the present moment there is only one other competitor in the Caribbean—the United States. The United States, for many reasons, are riot liked either politically or commercially among the 12 Republics of the Caribbean. In the past they have

interfered far too much, according to those nations, in their domestic policy. For a long time, especially under President Pierce, there was the policy of domination of the Caribbean by the United States, and those nations have never forgotten this. They have very long memories. As one arrives in Venezuela, and people see that one is British they say "The British helped Bolivar to free Venezuela from Spain." In Santo Domingo they say, "Britain was the first country in the world to recognise the independence of Santo Domingo." So there is this long-established, old-fashioned friendship in this part of the world for Britain, and it is a very solid basis on which to do trade.
I would urge the President of the Board of Trade to direct his attention more to this part of the world, to see what we can do there, because any markets we establish there will be permanent markets, whereas this drive towards the United States is only a temporary thing; as soon as they themselves can supply their own markets they will have no time for our exports, whereas if we establish these markets in the Caribbean they will be permanent, and we shall always be able to keep them.
We cannot obtain or retain those markets merely by giving them things we do not want. There are goods that we produce that they do want, and I shall presently go through a table of some of the things that have been detailed to me as being things with which those nations can do. If we are to obtain this trade we have to learn to trade with them in their language and system of calculations. The whole world trades on the metric system, whereas we do not. It is very difficult for a Mexican or a Haitian or a Guatemaltecan to work out our yards or inches, or our farthings or pence. In our export trade we have to understand that we must quote our prices and measurements in standards that they understand. In addition, if we send out catalogues they must be in the language of those countries; or if we send travellers they must know the language, so that they can talk to those peoples in their own language. It is of no use to expect them to speak English when, perhaps, they do not speak it. Our travellers should see that they know the languages of the countries they


are to visit, and they should know something about the countries they are to visit and their requirements.
As far as invisible exports are concerned, I shall mention only the services of the Mauritania. She has done five cruises this year from New York to the Caribbean, each time carrying between 750 and 800 passengers at a minimum rate of £100 each. Those are dollar-winning cruises, and by such cruises we can bring in a lot of money to this country.
With regard to visible exports, in Mexico they told me that they can do with hydro-electric equipment, port equipment, and machinery of all kinds. They want our textiles, also. Peculiarly enough, wherever one goes in those countries one finds that the people want English biscuits. In Honduras the British Minister, Mr. Fowler, told me they wanted very cheap textiles, but I explained to him that we could not possibly compete with the cheap, commercial textiles from Mexico or Brazil, and that they would have to pay more and have quality textiles, for we could not supply them with the very cheap articles. In Santo Domingo they want agricultural machinery from us. They have asked also for two destroyers, and I believe that there are negotiations going on about the buying of two destroyers from this country. They want British naval officers to go out with the ships to train their people aboard them.
In British Honduras, where all the trouble has been lately, there is a very big dollar winning substance, chicle, that goes to the United States for making chewing gum. It is a big item. It could be produced in much larger quantities than it is being produced at present. They say that we have done nothing whatever to develop the production of this very valuable product. It is really a disgrace the way the Colony has been handled, especially as the 6o,000 negroes who are the inhabitants of Honduras are to a man loyal to this country and would not be separated from us for anything.
Throughout the Caribbean the people want our films. We are trying to impose our films upon the Americans, and the Americans do not want them, but in Central America the people like our films. In fact, in different countries, by different representatives of the film industry, I

was shown lists and analyses which show that there is a preference for British films over American films. Instead of trying to get a small profit in dollars from the United States, let us go after the big profit in dollars from the Caribbean. We must not forget that all the Caribbean countries are dollar-paying countries.

Mr. Beverley Baxter: The hon. Gentleman says that they like our British films—and we are all glad to hear that—but, as he said a moment ago that they did not speak our language, are the films presented done with Spanish and other sub-titles?

Mr. Follick: Yes, they are done with sub-titles. The hon. Member did not quite listen to what I said. I said that they showed great preference for our films over American films. There is a similarity of language between Great Britain and the United States.

Mr. Baxter: I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he did not listen to what I had to say either. We have all been listening here very nicely. He said that they did not speak English over there. I think that the word "English" must include American. The hon. Gentleman said that we should send salesmen who could speak a language which they understood. Now, apparently, they speak American but not English.

Mr. Follick: The hon. Member asked whether there were sub-titles. The films are sub-titled in Spanish.
In Venezuela there is a very great British undertaking, the Venezuelan Oil Concession. That organisation wants pipes but they cannot get them. As a result, they cannot develop to the fullest extent their oil production in order to earn dollars. They cannot get anywhere near the amount of pipes they require. Of the oil concession, we hold one-third and the United States hold two-thirds. It is proposed to build a refinery in Cabo Cardón. At present all the British oil goes to Curacao for refining, but it is hoped that it will be possible to do that in the future in Cabo Cardón. That work is held up because they are unable to secure sufficient steel.
I know quite well that in the past these central American countries have had a bad name. They were pauper countries in the world, but today they are immensely


rich. There is an enormous amount of wealth in the 12 Caribbean States. They are all dollar-paying countries and they are all in a terrifically prosperous condition. There is no reason why we should not capture the markets and get dollars from them instead of pushing goods into what are more or less only temporary markets in the United States. In Colombia is the biggest platinum mine in the world. Recently, there has been "a bit of a do" out there in Bogota, but there again the Colombians like the English and show great affection for us.
I now leave the American countries in order to say a few words about the Bahamas. As I said in the Adjournment Debate on Thursday, there are one or two dollar-earning projects which we could pursue there with great benefit. The Bahamas, especially Nassau, are a pleasure resort which caters for the wealthy. They are frequented by 90 per cent. American and wealthy Canadians. If a priority could be given for the erection of a large hospital there with all the necessary sanitary arrangements supplied from this country, it would be a great scheme. Americans and other wealthy people would go there for treatment. There is a complaint from the Bahamas that there are not sufficient British goods in the shops. If that complaint was remedied, Americans visiting the Bahamas would find there a British shop-window. They would be able to purchase our products and they would get an idea of what we produce in this country. Those are the points which I wished to put before the House. This is a great market of between 6o and 70 million people who are begging for our goods. It is a market which we could easily supply and which would bring to us the dollars which we so sorely need,

6.46 p.m.

Mr. Maclay: Inevitably this Debate must be staccato inasmuch as speakers jump from subject to subject. The subject for discussion is very wide, and I hope I shall be forgiven if I leap firmly away from the Caribbean and come to some remarks made by the Secretary for Overseas Trade today. During his speech he paid tribute to the great achievement of British shipbuilding yards in turning out last year 56.9 per cent. of world production. That is a great achievement. It should be realised, and possibly

it is not fully realised, that that has been done in the face of tremendous difficulties.
There have been shortages of steel and of components; the people responsible for planning the work have been subjected to frustration at almost every turn. Great credit for this achievement is due to the men in the yards, the foremen and the yard managers and, above all, to the office staffs, the managers and directors. It is on the latter that the full responsibility falls for finding out where the material is, trying to get it forward, bringing it to the yard and arranging for the process of production to flow with reasonable smoothness. One has heard stories of ships in the building of which the whole yard has co-operated in order to get the vessel launched and the delivery date maintained. Then, with the hull ready and waiting to be launched, the whole project has been held up for three weeks because one small piece of material needed in the stern tube of the ship has been missing.
It is no small tribute to everybody concerned that the output has been achieved. Unfortunately, it is not only in shipyards that we find difficulty about the flow of material. It is quite relevant to quote from a different type of undertaking—a firm manufacturing agricultural equipment almost exclusively for export. This is what they write about the difficulty of maintaining the flow of production:
Manufacturers of steel components commonly used in industry, such as nuts, bolts, washers, springs and medium pressings, are failing to meet industry's requirements through lack of standard steel.
Another comment is:
An equally serious waste is the constant changing of designs and jigs to accommodate alternative material.
A further extract says:
The net result of all these shortages is that we have to waste production, men's time, in looking for materials; for example, go telephone calls to get enough half inch nuts for 35 machines.
It is puzzling to know what is going wrong. During the war there were great difficulties and shortages, but I do not think that there was the same interruption in the even flow of material. I can only comment, in regard to shipbuilding, that the record is extraordinarily good, but if the problem of getting a steady flow of material and of components running through the pipeline can be solved, the output of ships will be very much greater than


it was even with that record performance. It is difficult indeed for an Opposition Member to make constructive suggestions on how to solve that problem. It happens that I have had enough experience of working inside a Government Department, under war conditions, to know that the answer lies only in having full access to all the information available. Therefore, I do not apologise for not making constructive suggestions. While recognising the basic shortage of raw materials, I can only wonder whether there is not something seriously wrong. If something could be done about it, there would be a tremendous increase in production.
I now turn to the operation of ships. We have here one of the most important invisible exports the country can possibly have. In his Budget speech, the Chancellor of the Exchequer made these remarks:
If we had as large a shipping tonnage as pre-war we could have earned a net income several times the pre-war level of Lao million, but owing to our shipping losses, the amount of tonnage available for the profitable cross-trade routes is less than before the war.
Astonishing as it may seem, the British Mercantile Marine is very nearly rebuilt to the pre-war level in terms of tonnage, although the actual number of ships is substantially less. I have not the Lloyds Returns with me, but it is a fact that we shall have rebuilt up to the pre-war tonnage figure in the very near future. What is wrong with our merchant shipping is not so much the shortage of ships, but the fact that we are still meeting with fantastic delays in turn-round in all ports in the world. I have referred to this subject in previous speeches in this House, and I made particular reference to stevedores in a speech about a year ago. The fact is that the average time a ship spends in a British port is even today one-third longer than before the war, and that there are few signs yet of improvement, although this matter was discussed, as I have said, a long time ago in this House. In fairness, it should be made clear that working parties, composed of employers and union officials, have been on the job and that these reports are now coming in. I sincerely hope that the Government will do everything they can to bring home the importance of these reports to everyone concerned in the ports, and that some-

thing will really be achieved in getting ships turned round faster.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his speech on the Budget, also said:
In addition, oversea expenses of British ships have gone up, as has the cost of repairs in foreign ports.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th April, 1948; Vol. 449, c. 39.]
It is true that British ships are having to go abroad to get repairs done, but that it not remarkable when we realise that the working week for ship repairers, for example in the Bristol channel ports—and I think this is pretty general—finishes at 3.3o p.m. on a Friday, and that from that time onwards until Monday morning it is very difficult to get work done by overtime, which is extremely expensive and seldom possible to arrange. A Newcastle shipowner, recently commenting upon this problem, made this statement:
At the present time, when increased output and lower costs are necessary, it does seem a pity that in many trades the men have pressed for, and secured, a five-day working week. On two occasions recently, my firm have had ships in this river at weekends when it was desirable that certain small repairs should be carried out. To keep their commitments, the vessels were unable to wait, and therefore these repairs will have to be done at a foreign port.
All this means that ships are having to leave home ports to have expensive repairs done in Canada and the United States. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is right in saying that the cost of these repairs is substantially reducing the value of our invisible exports from the shipping services. I am not going to argue the merits or demerits of the five-day week. I know that it is a highly desirable thing that there should be a five-day week in a civilised State if it can afford it, but I cannot believe that if the facts in this shortened form of the Economic Survey were brought home to the men in the shipyards and in the repair yards, and they were made aware of the acutely dangerous condition of this country, they would not respond and be prepared to reconsider the agreements which were freely negotiated and entered into during the last three years.
During the Easter Recess, I had occasion to speak in three different parts of the country, as widely separated as the East of Scotland, the West of Scotland and Southampton. At each meeting I referred to this document, and I found that no one


had ever seen it. I know that the Government are doing their best to push it around, but they will have to make even greater efforts. One of the most effective methods of bringing home the facts to the people is to use the Walt Disney cartoon technique. They have been used to great effect in the United States. I suggest that the Government employ some of our film studios, which are not in production for reasons I do not understand, to produce this type of feature to bring home the gravity of the situation, which is so necessary if we are to get the output we need and are to meet the targets which the Government have set.

6.58 p.m.

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: I understand that my remarks will be interrupted in a moment or two, and therefore I apologise if they may appear to be somewhat truncated. I was glad to hear the references which have been made to shipping, because it is upon our invisible exports that I should like to focus attention, if, in fact, it is possible to focus attention upon something which is invisible. As is shown from the White Paper, there has been a grave change in these invisible exports.
The first question I wish to raise is in regard to the last column on page 3 of the White Paper, where there is an analysis of what are called "Other Payments," which shows a net figure of £100 million in 1938, and a deficit of £20 million in 1947. There is, therefore, an apparent turnover of £120 million in the country's finances at stake. I spoke recently about the attitude of the United States on this shipping question. I beg the right hon. Gentleman, in negotiations which take place, to resist the point of view held in places in the United States that when we have built up our fleet to its prewar level, we have done all we are entitled to do, in view of the gap caused by the disappearance of the German and Japanese fleets. I heard it said that although the whole purpose of E.R.P. was so that we could get on our feet, that they should be entitled to choose in which industries and which activities we should be able to get on our feet.

It being Seven o'Clock, and there being Private Business set down by the direction of The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS  under Standing Order No. 6,  further Proceeding stood postponed.

Orders of the Day — UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD (LANDS) BILL [By Order]

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill as amended, be now considered."

7.1 p.m.

Mr. C. S. Taylor: I beg to move, to leave out the word "now" and, at the end of the Question, to add, "upon this day six months."
I believe that there are considerable matters of principle attaching to this Bill. First, I feel that the House should ask itself whether a university should be given powers of compulsory acquisition or not; second, I feel that we should ask ourselves whether, if these powers are granted, they should be on the same terms as those enjoyed by the central Government or by local authorities; third, I think we should ask ourselves whether the University of Sheffield really needs these powers today when there is such a shortage of living accommodation.
On the first point whether the University of Sheffield should be given the powers sought by this Bill, I do not believe that powers of compulsory acquisition should be delegated by Parliament to bodies other than local authorities, which are properly elected bodies. I do not say that these powers will be used unnecessarily or unfairly, but they may be so exercised. The University of Sheffield is not a statutory body. It was incorporated by Royal Charter in 1905, and I believe there are only two precedents for a university being given powers of compulsory purchase. One was in respect of the University of Aberdeen and the other in respect of the University of Edinburgh. These powers were granted about 5o years ago when they were given limited powers of compulsory purchase. I do not believe there is any precedent for compulsory purchase as far as a university is concerned other than these two cases. If Parliament grants these powers to a university which, I repeat, is not an elected body, why should not any university apply for similar powers? Why should not a voluntary hospital, or a school, or a college, or the Salvation Army, or societies like the Council for the Preservation of Rural England apply to Parliament for such powers?
It may be said during the Debate that education authorities now have powers to acquire land compulsorily. That is true, but education authorities were given those powers in the Education Act, 1944, when they were specifically mentioned. We have had two Acts of Parliament in which universities could have been included, in which they could have been given these rights in the same way as local authorities. Those Acts are the Education Act, 1944, which received the unanimous approval of this House, and the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947. Yet in both these cases the only bodies giving these powers were Government Departments and local or public authorities.
On the second point, whether it is right that the university, if given these powers, should be given the same rights of purchase as local authorities or the Government, I would say this: there is no precedent whatever for compulsory purchase on such financial terms as are provided in this Bill. I believe that if a university, which serves only a limited part of the community, wishes to acquire land for extension, it should be prepared to pay a fair price for the land, houses or buildings it wishes to acquire. In this case those who are seeking to occupy land and buildings will be depriving people not only of their business accommodation, but also of their living accommodation. Suppose the University of Sheffield is given powers tonight to acquire land compulsorily, what will happen to the people who are deprived of their living accommodation? They will have to find other accommodation, and in these days, when so many people are waiting for houses, it is almost impossible to obtain alternative accommodation. If people are not to be paid a fair and reasonable price for the property which they are now occupying, then it will be even more difficult for them to find alternative accommodation. I suggest that even if the University of Sheffield is given powers for compulsory purchase, Clause 3 (3) should be struck out. The Clause says:
The provisions of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act 1919 and of Part V of the Town and Country Planning Act 1947 and any Act or Acts amending or applying those provisions shall apply in relation to the acquisition of land by the university as they apply in relation to the acquisition

of land by a government department or a local or public authority.
I see no reason why any university should be put in as favourable a position as the Government, or a Government Department, or a local or public authority. I do not believe there is any secret about the fact that when this Bill was considered by the Select Committee there was a Division on whether this Clause should or should not remain in the Bill. The voting was a tie, 2–2, and the Clause was allowed to remain in the Bill on the Chairman's casting vote.
What would be the effect if Clause 3 (3) were excluded from the Bill? It would mean that the university would still be able compulsorily to acquire land, but would have to pay a fair price, which would be negotiated as between a willing buyer and a willing seller. I have nothing whatever against the University of Sheffield. I believe it is doing excellent work, that it is now overcrowded, and that it must have more space. But when plans were brought before the Committee upstairs it is significant that no architect was brought along by the university as an expert witness; there was no statement, on behalf of the university, that an attempt had been made to draw up an alternative scheme or to find alternative land.
I submit that although it may perhaps be desirable for the university to have land adjoining their existing buildings, it is not absolutely necessary that they should. In fact, they have produced no alternative scheme. Another question to which I should like an answer, if there is to be a reply on behalf of the Government, is: when will the university be able to build these extensions? When will they be able to get on with this great scheme? I suggest that we should be wrong to give the university powers at this time, when there are so many people waiting for houses, and when, as in this instance, living accommodation is to be demolished for the university extensions. I know that it will be said that those who occupy these premises are to be given five years of grace. I cannot believe that the university will be able to get on with this scheme within five years. I submit that period of grace is not long enough.
Finally, I would ask why has no local inquiry been held in Sheffield? Why


were those who wished to object, and who could not afford to come before Parliament—because it is expensive to appear before a Private Bill Committee —not given a local inquiry to state their case in a less expensive manner? If you, Mr. Speaker, were affected by this Bill, and you realised that your property or living accommodation was to be taken away from you compulsorily; if you knew that there were nearly 30,000 people on the waiting list for houses; and if you knew that, in addition, the university was hoping to acquire this land from you on specially favourable terms, so that you had no possible hope of finding alternative accommodation with the money paid to you for compulsory purchase, would you not yourself feel that you were being injured and treated cavalierly by Parliament, and would you not do your best to oppose it? That is the principle which I feel is involved in this Bill. I feel that if the university really want the land, it is only a difference of a few thousand pounds between the university and the man who at present holds the land. I hope that the House will consider our request that the Bill should be considered this day six months.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Erroll: I beg to second the Amendment.
I should like to make it clear to the House, before I go any further, that the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. C. S. Taylor) and I have nothing whatever against the University of Sheffield. Indeed, if this Bill had been sponsored by the University of Cambridge at which we were both undergraduates, we should have opposed the Measure, as we are doing now. Before proceeding with the details of my argument, I wish to refer to the difficulty of obtaining the Minutes of what took place in Committee. I understand that is a matter for the Parliamentary Agents sponsoring the Bill, and, on making inquiries of them, I was informed that there were no further copies of the Minutes available. I feel that Parliament is being treated rather peremptorily, if there were not sufficient copies printed of the Minutes dealing with such an important matter as to enable hon. Members interested to study at their leisure the details given to the Committee,

and so be in a position to arrive at a reasonable opinion. However, I am glad to say that I have been able to borrow a copy of the Minutes, and thus to make myself acquainted with the details.
Parliament has rightly decided in recent years to limit compulsory powers to the central 'Government or to local authorities and statutory bodies. Local authorities have full powers to act on behalf of the education committees in the compulsory acquisition of land for schools and other educational purposes. This matter was fully discussed during the passage of the Education Act, 1944, when it was rightly decided not to extend to universities the power to acquire land compulsorily, for the simple reason that universities were not in the same category as education committees, responsible as they are, for the education of the whole of the community. It is, therefore, an anomalous position that an individual university should be seeking to acquire the compulsory powers for which it asks in the Bill.
I would like to refer to the present position as set out both in the statement prepared by the sponsors of the Bill and the objections put forward by the petitioner. The university makes the point that it is entitled to make the request. Of course, it is entitled to make the request, but I feel that Parliament is equally entitled to refuse the request if it should so desire. I do not feel that we should be bamboozled into acceding to a request just because it has been made. Do not let us be readily over-ridden on our impartial view of this matter by the fact that it is a university which is making the request. The university, according to its own wording, feels that it is entitled to make the request. The petitioner, on the other hand, makes two very sound points which are not dealt with at all by the university. First, it is pointed out in the Petition against the Bill, in paragraph 9, that the university already owns, within the vicinity of the land of the petitioner, land and properties which have not yet been developed or fully developed. They have, therefore, land which they can use at the present time, but they do not choose to do so for a variety of reasons. Secondly, in paragraph 9, they point out that, if the university does not at present require the properties for current occupation, there can be no justification for conferring on the university the powers of compulsory acquisition.
Surely, at a time when property of all kinds is so short, there is no justification for a university acquiring property, if it does not intend at the present time to make full use of it. No justification for compulsory acquisition of the property has been put forward on the ground of present need. In fact, I think that it is fair to say that there is no hindrance to the university to proceed with their plans without this Bill. If, indeed, it is going to be a hindrance if they are denied the Bill, why did they not in Committee bring forward their architect as an expert witness with whom the matter could have been thoroughly threshed out? The architect who prepared the scheme was carefully kept away from the cross-examination of the Committee. He was not given the chance to say why it was so essential for the university to have these powers, and I suggest that the reason was that he would have been arguing a very weak case, and that if his mind were applied to the matter, he could prepare an alternative scheme which would not necessitate the granting of compulsory powers to the university.
It may be said that there has been only one objection—only one property owner has petitioned the House with this end in view. That, of course, is because of the great expense of making these petitions. I understand that it is a fact that the petitioner is willing to negotiate for a fair price. The powers given to the university in the Bill would enable them to acquire the property in question at a distinctly unfair price. There is, I believe, only a difference of a few thousand pounds between the price which the University of Sheffield would be prepared to pay, and the price which the present landlord is willing to receive. Yet, because of this small difference, this Bill has been brought before Parliament. Parliamentary time has been expended, and great expense has been incurred, when the university, by a more concilatory attitude, might have made the Bill quite unnecessary.
I suggest that we in this House should look at the position of the small tenant—the poor tenant of neighbouring properties also covered by this Bill, who cannot afford to undertake the cost of obtaining counsel or preparing Petitions and going through all the formalities that attend opposition to a Private Bill. The matter

could have been so easily overcome by the provision of a local inquiry, whereby any objector might have appeared and, at little or no expense, outlined his points of view. Instead, the university has apparently ridden roughshod over local objections and come to Parliament confident that it would get powers of compulsory acquisition.
It is significant that the Committee which considered this Bill had a 50–50 vote. In these days that is indeed very significant. If it is permissible to say so, I think it is unfortunate that the casting vote should have been cast for the Bill. Surely, a casting vote should be cast in such a way as to leave the matter open for further discussion and consideration. The casting vote should not be used to steam-roller a Measure of this character through Parliament. I see that we have with us no less a person than the Minister of Defence on the Front Bench opposite. As he represents a Sheffield constituency, doubtless he will rally to the aid of the Bill. I suggest to him that tonight he should abandon his defences and let the Amendment to defer this Bill go through.

7.23 p.m.

Mr. Burden: I have listened with very great care to the case put forward by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. C. S. Taylor) and by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll), and I regret to say that the conclusion which I have drawn from the two speeches is that this is really a matter only of £ s. d. In each case the speech was wound up on the theme that it is surely wrong to take Parliamentary time on a matter of a few thousand pounds. It is not the promoters of the Bill who are to be blamed in that respect—it is the hon. Member and others who are supporting the one petition.
Let me make the case as I understand it. Everyone knows that the University of Sheffield, in order to meet the every day and developing needs for university education, must expand. I think that is agreed on both sides of the House. I think it could be said also that a reasonable body of men, the Board of Governors responsible for the University of Sheffield—Sheffield people with Sheffield interests at heart—would do everything possible to get the fullest measure of agreement, settlement and conciliation with their own people.


That is borne out by the fact that, while there are 53 houses involved, a petition has come only from one owner of four houses. I am entitled to deduce therefore, that the other owners—not tenants —are satisfied that they will get a fair and square deal from the Board of Governors of the University of Sheffield.
There is another point I wish to make. It is rather late in the day, if I may say so with respect, for this Bill to be opposed. It has had its Second Reading, it has been considered in Committee upstairs and we are now on the Report stage.
The point is made that the University of Sheffield, not being a statutory body, but being a body incorporated by Royal Charter, ought not to have compulsory powers. Surely that is really an academic point? I suggest that the university comes within the definitions of the 1919 Act. The University of Sheffield is not trading for profit; it is carrying on as a public undertaking. As I think has been already mentioned, docks, harbours, catchment boards and all sorts of other bodies have power to acquire land for their purposes. Why a university, which is developing under a most distinguished Board of Governors, should be denied those powers, or why the attempt to deny them those powers should be made, passes my comprehension. Those representing the university did everything possible, short of coming up to the maximum which apparently is wanted by the hon. Member for Eastbourne, to meet the objections; they have said that no one is to be displaced within less than five years unless alternative accommodation is found for them.

Mr. C. S. Taylor: But did they offer to try to find alternative accommodation?

Mr. Burden: The hon. Member knows that they cannot find the accommodation.

Mr. Taylor: Exactly.

Mr. Burden: But the local authority can, and the local authority of Sheffield is as much interested in the development of the university as any other body in Sheffield. I am certain that they would do all within their power to help the development of the university by finding that alternative accommodation.

Mr. Taylor: They have not said so.

Mr. Burden: We are not arguing that question, because the real point is s. d. —a few thousand pounds. I hope therefore that the House will not accept the Amendment. In conclusion, I would say that there are young men and women in Sheffield who are looking forward with anxiety and with hope to the development of the university. The university has set a great movement on foot in order to raise funds for itself. It is a grand scheme, finely conceived, and it will be a crying shame if this grand project of Sheffield is to be held up and defeated just because one man wants a few thousand pounds.

7.29 p.m.

Mr. Henry Strauss: I rise to support the opposition to the Motion which was proposed by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. C. S. Taylor) and seconded by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll). It is customary in this House to confess a personal interest—indeed, it is obligatory to do so. I do not know whether I ought to confess an interest of my constituents, but this university is one of the eight great universities I have the honour to represent. The task of this House in considering private legislation is not easy, but there will be general assent to these propositions. If there is a great matter of principle obvious on the face of the Bill, this House is quite entitled to oppose that Bill on Second Reading, because if the grounds of opposition appear clearly on the face of the proposed Statute there can be nothing improper in that. If, on the other hand, the ground of opposition is not of universal application but it is desired to contest the particular application of some proposition, as here, this House is rightly slow to interfere with the view taken by the Committee which considered the evidence.
I accept from my hon. Friends that on one point at any rate there was a very close division. That sometimes happens, but nevertheless that does not mean that the Committee, which heard the evidence, is not in a better position to judge of the particular matters than those Members of this House who were not Members of the Committee. My hon. Friends who oppose the Report stage of this Bill have ventured on certain universal propositions which, as I hope to convince the House, must be wrong. The first proposition is that it can never be right for a university


to acquire land compulsorily. I suggest that that proposition must be wrong. It may be unusual for a university to need such powers and it may be right that Parliament in its wisdom should not give universities general powers to acquire land compulsorily, but should require the university to prove to the satisfaction of the House the necessity in each particular case.
Both my hon. Friends the Member for Eastbourne and the Member for Altrincham, unwittingly I know, slightly misled the House in saying that under the Education Act universities were deliberately excluded, and that that shows that it was the intention of Parliament that universities should never be given the right to come to the House with such a Measure as this. With all respect it shows nothing of the kind. What the Act of 1944 did was to enable local education authorities to acquire land compulsorily without coming to this House at all. From that power universities were very properly excluded. It is perfectly right that universities needing to acquire land should have to satisfy this House on every occasion that they have a good case. The University of Sheffield accept that, and I accept it. I ask the House emphatically to reject the proposition that no university in any circumstances must come to this House to seek to acquire land compulsorily. If universities were so excluded they would be almost the only exclusion of those who perform important public functions.
There are, of course, precedents for this. There are the two precedents which were cited to the Committee and which were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne in opening. They are the Edinburgh University and the Aberdeen University Acts. I could if I wished quote another fairly recent precedent which is in point, but it may be convenient simply to rely on those which were mentioned to the Committee. It is perfectly true that the grant of compulsory powers on those two occasions, on the Committee being satisfied—as this Committee is satisfied—that there was a good case for the particular university to acquire the land, did not carry with it the same implications regarding price as the carrying of this Bill will have.
Why was that? The Acts enabled the land to be acquired compulsorily under the

code for the compulsory acquisition of land applicable at the time and that is precisely what is being proposed today. My hon. Friends said that they could find no precedent for universities being allowed compulsorily to acquire land under these particular statutes at this particular price. I say—and I hope some hon. and learned Member either now or when he comes to speak will correct me if I am wrong—that I can think of no precedent where any body has been allowed to acquire land compulsorily and has not been allowed to do it under the code applicable at the time to the compulsory purchase of land. That code is either fair or it is unfair. If it is unfair it is obviously the duty of Parliament to amend it, but, if it is fair, it is surely not the duty of Parliament to say that some particular body, on whom rightly is confers the power of compulsory acquisition, should be debarred from the ordinary consequences of acquiring land compulsorily under that code.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne talked about Parliament in its wisdom not delegating the powers of compulsory acquisition. It is not delegating any powers now. It is by Act of Parliament empowering a particular body, on being satisfied that there is a good case for it, to acquire particular parcels of land. My two hon. Friends have spoken as though, if this Bill were defeated, only this one piece of land would be affected. That, of course, by no means follows.
Before I come to the question of what is the code that is applicable if there is a case for compulsory acquisition, let me say that the need is much more likely to arise in these modern universities, which need great expansion, than in an ancient university where an expansion by a similar proportion of its former size is not contemplated. I shall not weary the House with the figures of the increase that is contemplated in the University of Sheffield. It is an increase the necessity for which is not contested in any quarter of the House, and I am sure there is nobody here who would wish to injure that great university.
I assume, then, that the majority of hon. Members of this House agree with me in my first proposition that it is impossible to say that no university should, in any circumstances, be entitled by Act of Parliament to acquire land compulsorily. If that is so, we come to the question of


price. The price, if Clause 3 (3) were deleted, as suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne, would be governed by the Land Clauses (Consolidation) Act, 1845. The modern statute dealing with that matter is the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, which has been applied to compulsory acquisition generally since that date. The Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, Part V, and particularly Sections 51 and 52, amends the 1919 Act. The two together constitute the modern code.
There is nothing improper in that modern code being applied. Indeed, it would be without precedent if it were not applied. The university needs not only to expand but to expand in a particular place. Something was said about the university not thinking it necessary to call an architect as a witness but choosing to establish their point without doing so. I was not present at the meetings of the Committee and cannot say whether the authority thereby took any risks or not. One does not always call an architect if one can satisfy a tribunal without doing so.
If any comment had to be made about the absence of witnesses I should have thought that the most noticeable absence was that of the objector. Counsel, in the exercise of his discretion, did not think fit to call the petitioner as a witness. If any comment is to be made on the non-calling of a witness as much can be made of the non-calling of the petitioner as of the non-calling of an architect by the promoters.

Mr. C. S. Taylor: In this case the objector was ill. He is a very old man and he has been ill for some time.

Mr. Strauss: I am extremely sorry if I have made any point which is not fair. The objector was ably represented by counsel. There are means of obtaining evidence even from a man who is ill. I am sure it would not have been beyond the ingenuity of counsel to have the evidence of the objector, had he desired it. It would have been easy to obtain. The petitioner is the only objector, though all owners, lessees and occupiers affected were given full notice of the proposals in the Bill. Counsel for the petitioner made full use of his opportunity. He asked, first, that the Bill should be rejected

altogether. That claim failed. I am sure the committee will think it right that it should fail. His second claim was that this property should be excluded. On that he was defeated. His third proposition was that Clause 3 (3) should be excluded. I have given reasons why I suggest that that claim was wrong.
On the fourth submission of counsel for the petitioner. the petitioner succeeded in getting something quite substantial. The fourth request was that no notice to treat should be served before 1952. On that point the petitioner got more from the Committee than he asked. If hon. Members will turn to Clause 16 they will find that the petitioner has been given an even longer period than that for which he asked. The Committee desired to avoid hardship. Something was said by my hon. Friend about the time when the Bill would be operated. I invite the House to look at Clause 5 which defines the period for compulsory purchase so that the threat cannot forever hang over the heads of these people. The powers have to be exercised within the limits of Clause 5. Particular protection is then granted to the petitioner under Clause 16.

Mr. C. S. Taylor: It does not say that they can start work.

Mr. Strauss: Of course, it does not say that, but that is not a reason for rejecting the Bill. Something has been said about the bodies that benefit by the code set out in the existing statutes. They are Government Departments, local authorities, including local education authorities, and bodies not trading for profit and authorised by Act of Parliament to carry on public undertakings. If the universities had been created by Act of Parliament instead of, as is more usual, by Royal Charter, automatically the provisions set out in Clause 3 (3) would have applied. In 1947, statutory undertakers were added to these categories. There has been no objection to the Bill on Second Reading and no Amendment of the Bill is now before the House. The whole purpose of the hearings before the Committee upstairs is that the details should be gone into and that evidence should be heard.
No case has been put forward on this occasion in support of the two general propositions of my hon. Friends. It must be proper in some cases that the university should apply for compulsory


powers. It is in accordance with all precedents that compulsory powers, when granted, carry with them the implication that the compensation will be that given by the law of the land which is applicable, at the date when the powers are granted, to the compulsory acquisition of land. For these reasons, and because the needs of the university are undisputed and indisputable, I ask for the support of the House.

7.47 P.m.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: There is very little left for me to add to the speech made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss). The speeches that were made by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. C. S. Taylor) and by his seconder have been demolished. I do not know why they brought up the Education Act, 1944 If there is one thing on which we agree, it is that we do not want the universities to come under the Ministry of Education. This matter has no relevance to the Education Act. The other point was that it is customary to carry on the acquisition of land under the code existing at the time; this Bill incorporates the present code.
The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll) said: "Do not be bamboozled simply because it concerns a university." The great point about the Bill is that it relates to a university, the red brick universities. Oxford and Cambridge are not going to expand on any scale. It will be universities like Sheffield, Leeds, Manchester and Bristol. Some of them will expand 100 per cent. as the Barlow Report clearly envisaged. The only way to do it is by looking ahead upon a properly planned system. The Bill asks for the same power to be given to universities as is possessed by docks, harbours, railways and other statutory bodies. Are universities to be excluded from statutory undertakings? My hon. and learned Friend has stated the case for making a specific reference each time. The seconder said that the universities should not have these powers.
"Why not any university?" says my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne. Why not? A university is a very important body. Local education authorities have powers to acquire land for

educational purposes. When I was Parliamentary Secretary the only time I remember having any trouble was when the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) said that we were paying too much.
However, in the case of the universities we ought to give these powers. The Bill is very carefully drafted and the case is very strong, and particularly strong in Sheffield. The universities which are sometimes called "red-brick universities" really need radical reconstruction and expansion just as the technical and technological colleges of this country need expansion, but they happen to come under the Ministry of Education or local education authorities. I am not moved at all by the general arguments and I am not particularly moved by the technical town planning and legal arguments. I cannot, therefore, see why this objection has been raised today, except that it is possible that those who were opposed to the 1919 and 1947 Acts think that this is a convenient occasion on which to raise the matter of compensation again. It cannot of course make any difference—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because it is very hard to go back on this legislation which was passed by different types of Governments—Coalition Governments, Labour Governments and Conservative Governments — and has proved necessary on the whole for town planning—

Mr. C. S. Taylor: The universities are not statutory bodies.

Mr. Lindsay: It is the glory of the universities that they have a Royal Charter; it is only an accident that they do not come under the general law, and it is a glory that they are independent. I am sure that my hon. Friend rejoices in that fact; it is one of the great tenets of his party. It is because of the peculiar situation that they have a Royal Charter and do not come under the general law that they have to be included specifically in this Bill. Therefore, I very much hope that the objection will be rebutted.

7.53 P.m.

Sir John Graham Kerr: I have listened with the greatest interest to the arguments put forward by the mover and seconder of the Amendment. I thought that many of


their arguments were very weighty and I was rather prejudiced in their favour because I have a great distrust of powers for the compulsory acquisition of land. Yet, in spite of my being so influenced, I cannot by any possibility support the Amendment. This Bill is after all a great emergency Measure. One of the results of a great war like the one through which we have recently passed, is that the stream of young persons wishing to enter universities to equip themselves to play their part as efficient citizens is dammed up and they accumulate until at last, when the gates of peace are opened, the flood rushes to the various universities.
To any of us university representatives, the very biggest work which we have had to do has been to consider the hundreds of appeals by young persons who wanted to get into the universities and go on to equip themselves as citizens. Certainly to me it has been one of the most depressing features of all my work to feel how ineffective I was in relieving their anxieties and getting them into the universities. Why were we so ineffective? Because the accommodation of the various universities was suited to the ordinary stream of entrants in peace-time but was absolutely hopelessly insufficient for this great flood of would-be entrants.
The Government have shown well how they appreciate the need to do something to let these young citizens go on with their training. They have applied great pressure to universities to admit as many as can be accommodated and they have made great grants of money in order to provide the additional accommodation required. On those grounds—without going into any of the details of the matter and without trying to support or contradict any of the arguments that have been adduced—I feel that the great national need at the moment simply sweeps away all matters of detail and doubt. I therefore hope that the House will pass this Bill at once.

7.58 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Harry Morris: May I add a small voice in support of the University of Sheffield? I declare at once that I have an interest in this matter. I am a member of the Court of Governors of Sheffield University, but I also have to say that I have an even greater interest in that I represent the

constituency in which it is sought to acquire a good deal of the property for which the corporation seeks power. I think I may claim, just as much as hon. Members opposite, to have a very jealous interest in the affairs of my constituency. I claim, too, rather an advantage over hon. Members opposite, and most hon. Members on this side, in that I happen to live in Sheffield and know this constituency very well.
It does not appear to be gainsaid now —it appears to be quite unanimous, if I have heard the discussion aright—that the University of Sheffield has made out a case for the acquisition of land. It is agreed that the needs of Sheffield University are tremendous today. Anyone who knows the buildings which are now occupied by Sheffield University must know very well that it is impossible for the university to extend within the limits of those buildings. Before the war, the university used to have about 700 students; now it has about 1,700 students, and it has embarked on an ambitious scheme for the development of the university until it can take in about 3,000 students.
My knowledge of the locality helps me in this respect. I know well the property in which the objector to the Bill is concerned. It is quite impossible for the university to extend at all unless it takes in this property. It must extend that way, and that extends into my constituency. The university has by negotiation been able to make arrangements with certain property owners, including the owners of a picture palace. I can imagine that the proprietors of the picture palace are so imbued with the development of education in Sheffield that they think the university has a paramount need over the need for pictures in that area. Apparently the university has also been able to conduct negotiations, and reach agreement, with most of the surrounding occupiers and owners of land, and there is only one substantial objector. I say "substantial" because however small the property may be, the objection is a substantial one. I would have had a good deal of hesitation in supporting this Bill if it had been possible for the university td step in at once and turn this man out without having to provide reasonable alternative accommodation for him.
The question uppermost in my mind in considering this matter was what sort of


safeguard has been afforded to the individual who has objected? Surely Clause 16 provides a reasonable safeguard for him? The university is not entitled to take possession of this piece of property before 1st July, 1953, unless, before that date, suitable alternative accommodation is available for the owner of the land and his tenants. The Clause goes on:
Any question whether such accommodation is available shall unless otherwise agreed be determined by the county court judge for Sheffield
I should have thought that was an adequate safeguard. It is a much better safeguard than is given to day to those in county courts who are ordered to give up possessions of houses and properties. In my respectful submission, no entry under five years, unless reasonable alternative accommodation is provided, is an adequate safeguard to this objector. The gentleman is one of my constituents, and I should be the last to agree to any proposals which did not afford him an adequate safeguard.
It comes down to this: if the university has a case for the acquisition of this land, the only possible dispute is on the terms of that acquisition. Why should the University of Sheffield be in any worse position than a dock or harbour board or suppliers of electricity, gas, or water? If it had been the Corporation of Sheffield which had come along with powers to acquire land for the purpose of an educational authority, there could have been no objection to the acquisition of such land on these terms. It may be a good argument to say that the University of Sheffield ought to be in no better position than the Corporation and the education authority of Sheffield, but is there any reason for saying it should be worse off than the Corporation of Sheffield?
I understand that the university has launched its scheme with at least the approval, if not the active co-operation, of the Government, and in those circumstances the university is right in saying, "We should acquire our land on the same terms as those on which a local authority and other statutory undertakings can acquire it." It seems to me not a valid objection to say, "You cannot, because you are not a statutory undertaking. You possess your authority from a Royal Charter." For those reasons, having

seriously in mind the substantial objection made by the objector, I hope the House will now say that the grounds for the objection have been removed.

8.5 p.m.

Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: I am glad that after a longish run of hon. Members opposed to this Amendment, I have this opportunity of supporting my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. C. S. Taylor). Unlike the four or five hon. Members who have preceded me, I have not the advantage they have, albeit the temporary advantage, of being a university Member. I have, however, some little practical experience of the principles and procedure of the compulsory acquisition of land, and I would like to detain the House for a moment or two on the principles here involved.
This Debate has really considered two points: first, whether the University of Sheffield should have this power of compulsory acquisition and, secondly, if so, upon what terms and principles of compensation. It is quite right that the House should be applying itself to this question. The hon. Member for the Park Division of Sheffield (Mr. Burden) suggested that it was rather late in the day. for the House of Commons to have regard to this matter, but surely it is not to go forth from this House that Parliament regards its function as discharged if it can improve any Measure until that Measure is finally upon the Statute Book? My hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss) suggested that those who were supporting the Amendment put forward the point of view that the universities should not be allowed to have compulsory powers of acquisition. That, of course, is not so.
There is a clear distinction between general powers of cumpulsory acquisition under public Acts which Parliament has decreed in its wisdom should be given only to Government Departments, local authorities and statutory undertakers on the one hand, and a private Act of Parliament promoted by a private interest in which special compulsory powers of acquisition are given for a particular purpose. Nobody would dispute that a university can legitimately have powers under a private Act of Parliament.
The distinction to be drawn is this. Those categories which have powers under


public general Acts of Parliament are bodies either with elective responsibility or with functions important for the general body of the public on a wide scale. Private Acts of Parliament arise where there is no elective responsibility, and a narrow or less important interest is served. In such cases it is clear that Parliament must scrutinise the powers very jealously both because of those facts and, in this particular case, because of the question of alternative accommodation for persons displaced. There is some liability on local authorities under the existing Town Planning Acts to find alternative accommodation for people displaced in certain circumstances on account of compulsory acquisition by those local authorities.
Of course, in the case of a university, it is obvious that there can be no corresponding liability, because the university has no power to offer accommodation to any displaced person. All that has happened here is that there is a suspension put upon the operation of the compulsory acquisition in this case. If, however, the objector in question still has no alternative accommodation within that time, the powers of acquisition can and will be proceeded with against him. Therefore, there is inevitably an element of hardship in this case. I agree that it has been tempered by the concession made by the Committee upstairs; but there is still an element of hardship, and that is why it is necessary to look all the more closely at the principles of compensation here involved.
The hon. Member for the Park Division has poured great scorn on this question of £ s. d. I do not know why. Surely he would not suggest that money is not of some importance to an individual citizen? It would be a most exceptional citizen who attaches no importance to the question of compensation. It is very easy to mock at these things when one's own pocket is not involved, but I invite the hon. Member to put himself into the position of people whose property is compulsorily acquired.

Mr. Molson: Are we to understand that the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) is that in cases where a special Act of Parliament like this gives power for compulsory acquisition of land, the basis of compensation should be different from that which applies in the

case of the ordinary code of compensation?

Mr. Burden: Before the hon. Member deals with that point, will he deal with this? I have not poured scorn on the compensation as such, but on the small amount involved between the two parties.

Mr. Walker-Smith: The difference between the two parties is, in fact, substantial. It is not unusual for the difference between the parties to be considerable, and it is for an arbitrator to decide between them. I am coming to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) when I deal with the point raised so challengingly by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Combined English Universities. My hon. and learned Friend seems to attach considerable importance to the somewhat flyblown precedents of Edinburgh and Aberdeen in the last century. My hon. and learned Friend sought to meet the point, that these powers were given under a different principle of compensation, by saying that compulsory acquisition in those cases was carried out in accordance with the existing code applied at that time. But this, of course, is to miss a very important development in the history of the principles of compensation for compulsory acquisition. At the time of the two precedents in question, the whole of the code of compensation was governed by the Land Clauses Act, and other ancillary Statutes. That was a common code applicable to local authorities and Government Departments on the one hand, and to promoters of private Bills for compulsory acquisition on the other hand. My hon. and learned Friend is out of date by 30 years, because of the change in 1919.
After the Report of the Leslie Scott Committee in 1917 the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act of 1919 was passed, bringing in new rules for the assessment of compensation in respect of compulsory acquisition of land. The point forgotten or ignored by my hon. and learned Friend is that the 1919 Act has regard to local authorities and Government Departments, but not to the other category, of which we are speaking now. The whole situation was revolutionised in 1919, and there can be no merit in the argument my hon. and learned Friend put forward because there are now two codes, one in respect of Government


Departments and local authorities governed by the 1919 Act and the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, and the private promotors' code, which he conveniently ignored.

Mr. H. Strauss: Will my hon. Friend mention some precedents, later than 1919, in which powers of compulsory acquisition have been granted, but in which the 1919 code has not been applied?

Mr. Walker-Smith: Powers of compulsory acquisition given for specific purposes under Private Acts of Parliament do not necessarily follow the same code of compensation as acquisitions by local authorities, which are assessed under the rules of the 1919 Act.

Mr. Strauss: Can my hon. Friend give precedents?

Mr. Walker-Smith: I have not come here armed with precedents under various private Acts of Parliament. My hon. and learned Friend must know that that is the law as it exists. There has been this whittling down in the principle of assessing compensation. The old principles of the 1845 Act were based on the value of the land to the owner at the time of service of notice to treat, taking into account the probable use to which it might be put, and in addition to that there was a 10 per cent. allowance for the fact that there was compulsory acquisition. The 1919 Act substituted the test of market value to a willing seller, and abolished the 10 per cent. allowance in respect of acquisition by local authorities and Government Departments. The 1947 Town and Country Planning Act further whittled it down by assessing compensation only for existing restricted use, but still in respect of local authorities, Government Departments and statutory undertakings.
In this case, the objector has the disadvantage that he has not any statutory right to alternative accommodation. He has to go into an inflationary market in order to re-accommodate himself and it is proposed that he shall do that on the basis of compensation assessed on a doubly restricted principle. We say no. By Section 52 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1947, provision is made to eliminate the effect of the special value attributable to vacant possession as far as

the purchaser is concerned. What is sauce for the goose must be sauce for the gander, and in our view this objector has the right to the most favourable treatment in regard to compensation which it is possible to give him. We say he should not be exposed to the restricted principles of compensation of the 1947 and 1919 Acts, but should be assessed on the old principle prior to the 1919 Act, which governed acquisition in those days under the Land Clauses Consolidation Act. In those circumstances, I think that the House, favourable as it is to the claims—and just claims—of universities as we all must be, should have regard to the principles here involved—and should support the Amendment so ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne.

8.19 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): We have had four excellent speeches in support of this Bill by the hon. Member and the hon. and learned Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. K. Lindsay and Mr. H. Strauss), my hon. Friend the Member for the Park Division (Mr. Burden) and the hon. and gallant Member for the Central Division of Sheffield (Lt.-Col. H. Morris). Having listened carefully to what they have said, it appears to me that they have established an overwhelming case for the House to resist the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. C. S. Taylor). There is really nothing more I need add, except that it was felt it would be appropriate for someone from this Box to indicate to the House, supposing a Division were taken, that the Government wholeheartedly support this Bill.

Mr. Walker-Smith: The Government also supported the death penalty.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: This university serves students who come from a wide area, covering several counties. Its history goes back over 40 years, and it has steadily expanded down the years. Today its students number, I understand, about 1,700, and it is hoped, when this expansion takes effect to cater for something over 3,000. One point which has not been made tonight is that this university is providing technicians and professional men of the very kind we need. Its faculty of engineering, its faculty of mining and its medical faculty


do a great work. It seems to me, therefore, that it would be unfortunate, to say the least, if the House tonight agreed with the hon. Member for Eastbourne and refused to pass this Measure.
The hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) seemed to think we should reject it because the compensation to be paid is insufficient. I found his argument very difficult to follow. Surely, if under the terms of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, which was passed by a Conservative Government, certain terms of compensation were laid down, the House can assume that the terms would not be unjust to those whose land was compusorily taken under it. I think that we can rest assured, in view of the fact that a Select Committee has sat on this matter, that changes to cover this particular owner, which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Central Division of Sheffield mentioned, have been inserted in the Bill, and that every effort has been made to see that justice is done. We hope, therefore, that the House will agree to pass this Measure.
It struck me as rather strange that the hon. Member for Hertford seemed to think that a university was in some way in a category different from other educational institutions. Local authorities are able, so far as their education activities are concerned, to acquire land compulsorily. I see no reason why, when a local authority can do it, the same provision should not be extended to a university, because a university is carrying out exactly the same sort of work as is a local authority when it is extending its buildings for educational purposes. If a gas company and other statutory undertakings are allowed, and very properly, to take advantage of the legislation on the Statute Book for the compulsory acquisition of land, it seem to me to be a strange doctrine to say that the same right should not be accorded to universities when they come to this House for like powers.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Surely, the right hon. Gentleman ought to make his rather surprising observation quite clear to the House. Is he suggesting an amendment of the public general Acts which give powers of compulsory purchase so as to include universities? Or is he advancing the equally surprising doctrine that if a Private Bill for compulsory acquïsition

comes before the House from a university, it is the duty of the House to pass it without discussion?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Not necessarily without discussion, but we have to remember the history of this Measure. It came to this House and received its Second Reading. It was sent upstairs and a Select Committee went into it, with the utmost thoroughness, and found that the Preamble to the Bill was substantiated. That being so, I think we must take cognisance of the findings of the Select Committee. We have to remember that the money for the expansion of these universities is largely found by the taxpayer through the University Grants Committee. Over three years ago that Committee suggested to the Treasury that legislation should be passed empowering universities to acquire land in the same way as other public authorities and statutory undertakers. Sometime general legislation of that kind may be passed, but that moment has not yet arrived, and a university promoting a Private Bill has every right, so it seems to us, to ask the House to give it power to secure land and to acquire it under the Acts which are on the Statute Book.
I, for one, would all the more accord the university that right because I know that much of the money that will have to be found will come out of the pockets of the taxpayers. I see no difference whatever between giving these powers to a local authority, where the money comes partly out of the pockets of the ratepayers and partly out of the pockets of the taxpayers, and giving the same right under the same legislation to universities, knowing full well that the majority of the money for that expansion will come, through the University Grants Committee, out of the Exchequer. I hope, therefore, that the House will accede to the request for this Bill.

8.27 p.m.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd (Mid-Bedford): I think it proper to explain the line we now propose to take from this Bench. The right hon. Gentleman has asked the House to approve of the proposals in this Bill, which is not unnatural seeing that any widening of the sphere of compulsory purchase appeals to the present Government. The right hon. Gentleman said that opinions are divided in this House, but he made reference only to speeches


which supported his own point of view. Opinion was also divided on the Committee, and the Chairman, I understand —I am subject to correction—voted twice. I have always understood hitherto that it was the function of most chairmen —I am not au courant with what should happen on this occasion—to give his casting vote for the status quo. I take exception to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman calls in aid a vote on the Committee in which the chairman had two votes.
Another ironical fact was that the right hon. Gentleman called in aid speeches made by university Members. He was proud and pleased to shelter behind the speeches which were made possible by university votes. While it is very charitable of His Majesty's Government to pay such regard to the universities at a time when they are almost completely losing the support of university voters, let them beware of what will happen when they no longer have the protection of university Members behind which to shelter.
I think that the House as a whole will agree that this was an entirely proper subject to raise in the High Court of Parliament. It affects individual freedom, and in a world of diminishing freedom it is right and proper that the individual should go to Members of Parliament when his own rights are threatened. The older universities have not found it necessary to go outside the sphere of friendly arbitration when acquiring property. We believe this could be settled by agreement. We wish every success to the University of Sheffield, which has a great part to play in the cultural development of this country in the future. I am sure that the university desires its progress to be attended by the universal support of the citizens residing in Sheffield as well as by Parliament.
I would suggest to the promoters of this Bill, in view of the strong feelings expressed and the safety of individual liberty all over the world, that between now and the Third Reading of this Bill they look again at Clause 3 and decide whether they are not in a position to offer more generous compensation to the individual in this case than they can, if this Bill becomes law, claim by law. If they do that I am certain that their project for this university will go forward with greater harmony. In the

light of these observations we do not propose to divide at this time—

The Minister of Defence (Mr. A. V. Alexander): I should like to be clear, as the hon. Member has spoken for the Front Bench of the Conservative Party, whether his last remark meant that his party is in favour—definitely in favour—of more generous treatment being afforded to landowners for land acquired for educational purposes than are afforded by the Act of 1919 to the ordinary local education authorities. Is that the position?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I refuse to be drawn into a general statement. The right hon. Gentleman will remember only too well in Debates not many months ago on compulsory service his own refusal to be drawn into a series of general observations—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): The hon. Member is now making a second speech. He can only do that by leave of the House.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: By leave of the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am about to answer, if I have not the leave of the House I cannot answer. All I do say is—[Interruption.] is it not granted? —[HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] Then I cannot answer.

8.33 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: We have no intention whatever of being either transfixed on an imaginary dilemma by the Minister of Defence, or of shirking the issue. The Sheffield proposal we are now supporting has been slightly damaged by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who said it had the support of the Government—a very damaging thing nowadays, as he knows very well, and as the Home Secretary can confirm. We simply say, as was said just now, that we do not propose to delay the further progress of this Measure. My hon. Friend's own suggestion was that it would be very reasonable, in view of the discussion, for the promoters of the Bill to consider whether they could not come to agreement with Sheffield University. That was merely a counsel that two people should get together. I do not think there is any objection that could reasonably be taken in any part of the House to such


counsel, and when my hon. Friend had further pointed out from the Front Bench that it was not our intention to divide against this Measure, I think it was a little ungracious of hon. Members on the other side of the House to refuse him the opportunity of making his position clear which he had been challenged to do by the Minister of Defence. It is on that ground that I venture to intervene in the Debate.

Question, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.

Main Question put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, considered accordingly; to be read the Third time.

Orders of the Day — SMETHWICK CORPORATION BILL

Read a Second time, and committed.

8.35 p.m.

Mr. Harold Roberts: I beg to move, "That it be an instruction to the Committee on the Bill to leave out Clause 13 and the Schedule."
Clause 13 is a provision in this general powers Bill which empowers the Smethwick Corporation to erect and maintain gas works on land set out in the Schedule, an area of approximately one and a half acres at Alexandra Road at Handsworth in the City of Birmingham. We have to see with what object this Clause was inserted and to consider why it is not now necessary and, as I think, rather injurious. For many years the Corporation of Smethwick have maintained a gas undertaking, as have their neighbours, Birmingham and Swan Village. The need for gas supplies at Smethwick is certainly increasing and the corporation, as undertakers, very properly considered the point of how those needs could best be met. I make no complaint whatever. It was their duty as undertakers to do that. Accordingly, last Autumn, when they were preparing their general powers Bill, they inserted this Clause.
The only place in which they could put the gas works was on this site at Handsworth in the City of Birmingham. I make no complaint of their action, but I wish to remind the House that the position is now entirely different. Since this

Bill had its First reading, the Government have introduced the Gas Bill which was read a Second time and is now being considered by a Committee upstairs. By the time the general powers Bill of the Smethwick Corporation becomes law, the corporation will no longer be undertakers —nor will Birmingham or West Bromwich. All these undertakings will be merged in the West Midlands Gas Board, called into being, as the Minister in opening and the Leader of the House in winding up the Second Reading Debate pointed out, with a view to integrating the gas supplies of the country and in particular, as far as this board is concerned, the gas supplies of the West Midlands.
When one has a technical difficulty of this kind by which some people in certain parts of Smethwick do not get an adequate gas supply, one can conceive that there may be several ways, technically, of meeting the position. It would be possible to invoke the aid of the Swan Village works or to lay a new main from Birmingham; but none of those methods was legally competent at the time the Bill was promoted. They will be competent under the new Gas Bill. Therefore, as a result of Government legislation, this Clause is unnecessary.
Its effect cannot be good, because if one thing is necessary more than another to the success of the future working of the gas industry, it is that area boards should have an open mind and be free to judge between different technical alternatives. To prejudge the question of how the requirements of Smethwick can best be met by a Clause of this kind runs contrary to the spirit of legislation which has been promoted and which, one may assume, will shortly become law. My objection is of a non-controversial nature. If the course which I suggest was followed, no hardship would be inflicted upon anybody, and the general position would be maintained that it is wise in local bills to act in conformity not only with the law as it stands but with legislation which is now before the House.

Sir John Mellor: I beg to second the Motion.

8.40 p.m.

Mr. Cecil Poole: I ask the House to reject this Motion, and I do so not solely because I believe that my hon.


Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon-Walker) is unable to speak in this Debate, but also because I have a very good knowledge of the problems of Smethwick and adjacent boroughs in the Black Country, having lived quite close by for a very long time. We have heard a most amazing suggestion from the Opposition Front Benches as to the reason why Clause 13 should be deleted from this Bill. Apparently, the whole basis of the argument of the hon. Member for Handsworth (Mr. H. Roberts), quite contrary to what I anticipated, is that, he is anxious to safeguard the interests of nationalised undertakings. That is surely an amazing argument, when one has seen how the nationalisation of the gas industry has been opposed by hon. Members opposite.
It has been suggested that it is undesirable that these powers should be accorded to the Smethwick Corporation because, before they can be operated, the undertaking will have been nationalised; but in the Bill there is laid upon the corporation the responsibility of maintaining its undertaking in the present condition up to the time when it is taken over, and, moreover, there is also laid upon it the responsibility of providing gas supplies to consumers in its area. Therefore, it must fulfil these two objectives, but it is quite impossible to do that without Clause 13 of the Bill. The second suggestion was that Smethwick should take supplies from adjacent authorities, and Birmingham was suggested.

Mr. H. Roberts: My suggestion was not that at all. There will not be any adjacent authorities; it will be one authority, which will supply the area.

Mr. Poole: That is the position as it may be subsequent to nationalisation, but the fact that we nationalise the gas industry does not of itself produce any more gas. It does not create more gasholders. The problem of Cause 13 is the provision of an additional gasholder for Smethwick. There was also the suggestion that Swan Village or Birmingham might supply additional gas for Smethwick from their undertakings, but the hon. Member for Handsworth is an alderman of Birmingham City Council, and surely he ought to know that Birmingham itself cannot make sufficient gas to meet all its needs, and is, at the present time, taking a large supply from Coventry to meet the needs of its own

people on the east side of Birmingham. Further Birmingham is most reluctant to continue to supply Smethwick, which she does at the present time. Smethwick is now taking gas from Birmingham to meet the needs of her consumers.
The problem is this. Here we have a county borough almost entirely built up and with a density of population of 30 to the acre, which is, I think, the highest figure for the whole country. The local authority cannot even build its own municipal houses within its own boundaries but has had to construct 1,200 houses outside those boundaries, because its own area is completely built up. Here we have an industrial borough with very great demands for industrial gas, and with an expansion, figures of which I have, which has been a twelve-fold increase over the past quarter of a century. The position is that unless this Clause remains in this Bill, there must of necessity be a large number of industrial undertakings in the borough of Smethwick which will not be able to carry on with the demands of the export programme and will not be able to maintain full employment for the 40,000 people who are employed in those undertakings consuming industrial gas.
I cannot believe that at a time when production is so necessary Members on either side of this House will wish to deprive the industries of this country of the wherewithal to keep production at its peak and to maintain full employment for the people engaged in industry. As to the point that the area boards should be left free, and that this Clause will in some way hamper them, I am advised that that is not the case, that what is proposed in this Bill is very suitable for any proposed national gas grid that might be created, and that this additional gasholder will fit in very well with any scheme which any area board might devise.
I cannot help feeling that the hon. Member for Handsworth may be somewhat influenced by the fact that it is proposed to erect this gasholder in part of the division which he has the honour to represent in this House. Nobody likes a gasholder anywhere. They are not very sightly things. The greatest possible efforts have been made by the Smethwick Corporation to meet the needs of all concerned in the location of this gasholder. I have already said that the borough is wholly built up. They went to the


adjacent City of Birmingham and, in consultation with the City of Birmingham, they selected certain sites. Before even entering into negotiations with the owners of any of the sites which they thought were suitable, they went to the Birmingham City Council, who are the planning authority for the area, and got from them full approval of the site which is suggested. They have since then moved the original location of the gasholder to a site which the Birmingham City Council, of which the hon. Member for Handsworth is a member, have suggested.
The proposed location of the gasholder is where the Birmingham City Council themselves have suggested it should be. It is at least 150 feet from any house, and it has been sited on ground which I suggest will be much less unsightly when the gasholder is on it than it is at present. That may seem an astonishing thing to say, but if any right hon. or hon. Member would like to see a photograph of the site in its present condition, I shall be very happy to oblige them. A gasholder on this site will considerably improve it. That may be a shocking thing to say of an area like Handsworth, which claims to be a very respectable part of the City of Birmingham. However, we are told that the camera cannot lie, and I have copies of the photograph which I shall be very glad to show to any hon. Member. I suggest that this Clause should be left in the Bill, and that the Committee upstairs, to which the Bill will be remitted, is the right and proper authority to decide whether a Clause shall be deleted from the Bill. Therefore, I ask the House to resist the Motion and to allow this Bill to go to the Committee upstairs in unamended form.

8.48 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Robens): I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. C. Poole) for the case that he has just made against the Motion moved by the hon. Member for Handsworth (Mr. H. Roberts). While I do not propose to go into the amenity aspect of the matter, it is important that that part of the case should be put. On amenity grounds it can scarcely be said that there should be support for the Motion. However, I do not think that was the hon. Gentleman's case. His case rested on the fact that one should do

nothing at this stage until the gas industry has been nationalised and the area boards have been set up, and that they should be left with the problem. His case, therefore, was that nothing should be done for some considerable time in view of the fact that the Bill for the socialisation of the gas industry is now only going through its Committee stage.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield for providing me with some information of which I was not aware; that is that the hon. Member for Handsworth is an alderman of the City of Birmingham. On learning that fact, I am rather surprised that the hon. Member should say that we should do nothing about gas production in that area. His city council have been most active lately; indeed, they have wanted the help of my own Department in relation to their own undertaking. They have made a great case for the expansion of his corporation's undertaking because of the great shortage of gas in the area. I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman, representing that city, coming to this House and saying, in effect, "Do nothing about gas production in this area." That is certainly not on all fours with the case which the City of Birmingham put up in relation to gas.

Mr. H. Roberts: I did not say, "do nothing about production." What I said was, "do not encumber the statute book with a statute with regard to acquiring a particular site and doing something of a technical kind which would be better dealt with by the area board,"—which I supposed in my innocence would come into being fairly soon at the pace they are working upstairs. If I am told, however, there is to be delay, and gas is not to be nationalised, I suppose I must give way.

Mr. Robens: It is clear that the hon. Gentleman is not cognisant of the Bill. In relation to this particular site it is not a question of erecting a gasworks.

Mr. H. Roberts: Has the Minister read the Bill? It says so.

Mr. Robens: I have read the Bill and, if I may say so I have also read the Amendments. I have no doubt that if the hon. Gentleman had taken the trouble to read them he would have seen that Clause 13 is to be amended to provide on this site that only gas storage shall be


permitted. The production of gas is already proceeding apace and, indeed, my own Department has authorised the installation of additional carbonising plant and of the ancillary apparatus to make an additional 3 million cubic feet of gas, with provision to extend that 3 million cubic feet to 4 million. This plant could not be operated economically unless there was provided at the same time the additional storage space, and so the Smethwick Corporation were faced with finding a suitable site to hold the gas which they will make, which they have authority to make and which they are proceeding to make.
There is no room at all in their present gasworks and I need not go again into all the arguments presented by the hon. Member for Lichfield. He presented them quite clearly and described the steps taken by Smethwick to examine a large number of sites and the actual agreement with the City of Birmingham, as the planning authority, on the use of land outside their local boundaries. He made the position quite clear, and it is a fact that if Smethwick had the land around their own gasworks on which to place this holder, indeed they would have placed it there; but they have not got it and so, willy-nilly, they were forced to look elsewhere. By agreement with the corporation this site has been selected. The original site has been moved a little further east and the result, I understand, will be an improvement from the amenity point of view—it will be further away from the neighbouring houses—and it will be on a less high piece of ground and, therefore, not so conspicuous.
We come, therefore, to the real point of the hon. Gentleman's argument, that this ought to be left to the area board. I want to tell him this. There is an outstanding demand now in the area for 600 million cubic feet of gas per annum. Industrial users are requiring more and more. It would be quite wrong to wait until the area boards are set up before dealing with this problem. It would be quite wrong from the aspect of the country's desire for greater production. It would be wrong to do nothing about a very urgent matter. I hope that the House will not be swayed by the arguments of the hon. Gentleman, who showed (a) he had not read the Bill and the Amendments; (b) he is at variance with

the local authority on this matter; and (c) he has paid very little regard to the progress of the Gas Bill upstairs, otherwise he would not have said that it is going through quickly when, in fact, it is going through very slowly indeed.

Question, "That it be an instruction to the Committee on the Bill to leave out Clause 13 and the Schedule," put, and negatived.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1948–49.

Postponed proceeding resumed on Amendment to Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

Question again proposed "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

Orders of the Day — EXPORT TARGETS

8.58 p.m.

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: May I entice a reluctant House back from the educational heights of Sheffield and the gas nationalisation problem of Smethwick to the wider issues which we were discussing when the interruption of our proceedings took place?
I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade that there is an attitude persisting in certain sections of the United States that the shipping trade of this country—one of our most important invisible exports —should be limited to our pre-war activity. I would urge him that such an attitude should be resisted. The United States, in their generosity, are determined to give such aid as will enable us to get on to our economic feet again, but it is quite illogical for them to say that we in Britain must get on our own feet and to tell us in what way and in what trades we are to do it. It must be clear that the chances of this country for ultimate recovery lie along our developing those trades and services which history has shown we well know how to operate. If any country takes the attitude of encouraging, us to get on to our feet again and denies us the right to get on to our feet in the industries we well know, then,


although we may be in a weak economic position at the present time in that matter we are in an immensely strong logical position in resisting it.
The shipping industry is one of the trades of the country which is bedevilled by restrictionist practices. Therefore, I welcome the working party which has been set up to go into all that is delaying shipping, as instanced by the hon. Member for Montrose Burghs (Mr. Maclay), and to report. I hope that the working party will report fully and let the country and the House know exactly what it is, without fear or favour for any particular political conception, that has gone wrong. They will find that certain ports and channels need widening and berths need deepening, and in many cases mechanical appliances need modernisation. They will find also that there is much restrictionism in trade union rules and regulations, which, if they can be alleviated or abolished, would do a great deal to put the shipping industry into a much more prosperous condition. Some of the things going on there are, in the present economic difficulties from which we are suffering, not only intolerable but unpatriotic. For example, a ship can be turned round in the port of Antwerp twice as quickly as it can in Britain. I do not need to emphasise to the right hon. Gentleman or to the House just what an important part it plays in the shipping industry to have a vessel dispatched, loaded and discharged quickly in the port at which it calls.
I will give an instance of what is going on. If a gang working in the hold of any vessel is one man short all work stops until another man is found to replace him, but pay goes on. There might be the exaggerated instance of a vessel with 10 gangs working in it and each gang, being one man short, cannot get on with its work because a man cannot be transferred from one gang to another. That sort of thing is quite intolerable. If one gang was able to be split up and passed over to other gangs working, perhaps, at the same sort of cargo in the same ship, it would at least be possible to get nine-tenths of that ship handled in the case I have outlined. No one would be worse off, certainly not the men who are working, and the country would indeed be much better off. There are great restrictions, for example, in the working of week-end overtime. Those

restrictions, which were not imposed with the same severity before the war, should again be examined and alleviated.
I have heard of a port where mechanical trucks, for the loading and discharge of vessels, have been bought and are still lying in store unused because the union are unwilling to accept the implied reduction in labour which those very mechanical trucks were bought in order to bring about. The working party will find many other and more complicated instances, but I will not go into them tonight. I hope that they will come out quite openly with all these circumstances which are, in fact, interfering with the recovery of shipping as we knew it before the war.
I beg the Government to look into the matter of taxation on new vessels which are being built or purchased to carry on the shipping trades of the country. Even in pre-war days on a small proportion of the timber traffic, for example, in the Baltic was carried in British vessels, and the same situation is again obtaining now. I understand that the Minister of Transport is anxious that Britain should take a higher and larger share of the timber carrying trade, but what makes it so difficult for British owners to carry out such a trade successfully is that Scandinavian competitors are treated very much more generously in the matter of the initial depreciation, which they are allowed by their Governments to write off before paying taxation, on vessels of this kind. The chances, therefore, of the British owners being able to build up a reserve fund, out of which he can replace a vessel when once its life is done, are so much poorer than those of the Scandinavian owners that the British owner is reluctant to build the vessels which are so urgently required for that trade.
Mention was made—I think by the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Follick) —of the cruise of the "Mauretania." Apart altogether from the immediate financial advantage of vessels of that kind, the prestige of this country goes up enormously when these magnificent vessels, which are built in this country, make their calls at foreign ports. All of us shine, in the eyes of the Americans, to a certain extent in the reflected glories of the "Queen Elizabeth" and the "Queen Mary", and whenever these majestic and magnificent vessels sail into the port of New York British prestige


goes up quite a few points. The same can be said of the reconditioned P. and O. liners, which are really ambassadors of the prestige of this country, when they call at Port Said, or Bombay, or Colombo. When the first British vessel put into Hong Kong not so long ago, spick-and-span after reconditioning, it was an occasion almost for national rejoicing.
I have spoken of invisible exports and the question of insurance on a previous occasion and I do not wish to recapitulate what I have already said about the difficulty to which, in some countries, British insurance is being subjected. I notice from the OFFICIAL REPORT, that one hon. Member then asked me how the Government were going to be able to oppose the measures which these foreign countries were instituting and advocating. An ejaculation of that kind from an hon. Member seems to me to show the depth of feebleness to which very many hon. Members opposite have allowed themselves to sink. We have not forgotten the interjection and remarks of the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon the holding of Japanese bonds. Are we so enfeebled that we are unable to say "boo" to the Argentine or Egyptian goose? Such a state of affairs is quite intolerable in a country which remains the biggest selling market in the world for those very countries which are striving to prejudice us.
The Government are not reluctant to penalise small interests in this country whose votes do not count for much. We recall the remarks of the former Minister of Fuel and Power about the tinker's cuss. Those are the remarks of a bully and a bully as a general rule lacks courage. Is it that the Government lack the courage to stand up for British interests when they are assailed by foreign countries who are introducing prejudicial interests against them? If we have reached that stage it is a poor outlook for the future óf Great Britain.

9.7 P.m.

Mr. Turton (Thirsk and Ma1ton): Earlier in this Debate the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) said he found it difficult to understand how, when steel had had a record production in the early part of this year, the targets based on steel were being cut. I tried to understand the explanation given by the Secretary for Overseas Trade but without any great

success. He talked of the cut in the export target for agricultural machinery. It may be that I have misunderstood what he said, but I took a note of it at the time. I understood him to say that the reason for the cut was that steel was required for factories, mines and textile plant.
The President of the Board of Trade in a Press announcement—I wish he had made the announcement on the Floor of the House when we would have cleared the matter up more satisfactorily—said he had made these cuts to assure the home market of a full programme of equipment. I hope that when he replies to the Debate, he will make that abundantly clear. If these cuts in our exports of agricultural machinery are going to mean that the home market is to have more machinery, I, for one, welcome the Government's decision, and their conversion from a policy of austerity at home.
I should also like him to clear up the position which was created by answers recently in the House to two Questions. On 26th January it was stated that the allocations of steel for agricultural machinery in the first six mouths of 1948 would be twice the allocation for 1947. That would presumably mean that the production of agricultural machinery in the first six months of 1948 would be round about £43 million. We do not know yet what will be the allocation of steel for agricultural machinery in the latter half of 1948. I should like it to be made quite clear that, although there has been a very large cut from £57 million to £25 million —a cut of £32 million worth of agricultural machinery for exports—the steel allocated for agricultural machinery is not going to be varied at all.
The other question which I should like to bring up to date, if any renovation is required, is that which was answered on 15th December, 1947. It was then stated that the expendiure by British farmers on agricultural machinery was, in 1946, £27 million to £30 million; in 1947, £35 million to £40 million, and in the present year was to be £50 million. I hope that I am right in saying that if the £32 million of agricultural machinery destined for export is now to be reserved for home agriculture, the expenditure on British agriculture should be much higher than that figure of £50 million. It has always been my


belief, shared I know by many hon. Members on this side of the House, that the best way of tackling the adverse balance of payments is to increase largely our food production at home. For that we must have the tools for the job.
We may remember that in August last year the Parliamentary Secretary said that the Government had decided that the programme—speaking about steel tractors and implements—of agricultural extension must be carried out and that instructions had been issued accordingly to the Departments responsible. In November, we learned from the Paymaster-General that steel for agricultural machinery was not on the Prime Minister's list of essential priorities for steel. I hope that that position will be cleared up, and that the result will be to our satisfaction.
There are two other short points which I wish to raise, in order that we may have an explanation from the Government. My constituents and those of other hon. Members are suffering great austerity for the sake of exports. Sometimes we think that some of the austerity is unjustifiable. This year there has been a cut in the clothing ration—clothes and footwear. There has also been a severe cut in the sweet ration. [HON. MEMBERS: "It has been increased.] There has been a temporary increase of one ounce for one month. I hope that hon. Members will take comfort from that 250 tons of sugar that the Minister of Food told us about this afternoon, when he has three million tons of sugar to play with.
Perhaps I may come back to clothing and footwear. Last year our chief export market for clothing and footwear was in Eire. That became the largest export market for clothing and footwear, taking £5 million worth. I have not had great experience of the Irish Government's loyalty to Britain during the recent war, so I do not think that the clothing and footwear can be a great gift to Ireland for the action she took during the war. Clearly this export of £5 million worth of clothing and footwear does not relieve the dollar situation. Eire has an adverse balance with us of some £22,500,000 a year. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to tell us how he justifies the policy of keeping clothes rationed to the people of this country while allowing large exports of clothing and footwear to

Ireland, so enabling the Eire Government to take off all clothes rationing. The position now is that those who have the money to go to Ireland can buy without coupons all the clothing, boots and shoes that they require and, after a somewhat costly interview with die Customs inspectors on their return journey, they come home well provided with goods. I should have thought that the right policy for this Government would have been to deflect from Eire to the home market that £5 million worth of clothing and footwear and increase the clothing ration.
My last point is again on clothing. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman why he refuses to allow fully fashioned lisle stockings to be produced for the home market. Women constituents of mine used to spend in the shops 4s. 6d. for a pair of fully fashioned lisle stockings. Now the right hon. Gentleman says austerity denies that and all fully fashioned lisle stockings must be exported. At the same time he imports from Czechoslovakia stockings for them to buy which cost 10s. 6d. a pair in the shops. I see from one of the recent trade and navigation returns that we are spending LI million on these stockings. I cannot conceive that such a policy is economical or indeed just. If we want to try to prevent inflation we should allow fully fashioned lisle stockings at 4s. 6d. a pair to be circulated in the home market and should not afford, in our grim austerity, the luxury of these 10s. 6d. a pair stockings from Czechoslovakia. Those are my three points, and I hope I shall get a full and clear reply about agricultural machinery.

9.18 p.m.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I wish to add a word or two about agricultural machinery. Talking from my experience in my own concern, I should have thought that if there was one part of our export trade where we could rapidly expand our export, it was in the realm of agricultural machinery. We have unsatisfied demands in large quantities from nearly every country in the world for the agricultural machines which we make. We could double, quadruple and perhaps multiply ten times our present exports if only two things could be obtained. The first thing is the necessary currency in the countries which want to import our


goods. Perhaps that is a little off the theme of the Debate, but I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is fully aware of it. Certainly, we are constantly hearing from unhappy, disappointed potential buyers in the countries on the Continent that, while they would like to purchase hundreds of our machines, they have not the currency with which to do it. That is a very serious matter.
The second thing which prevents our increasing greatly our export trade is the lack of steel. I suppose that the right hon. Gentleman is aware of the fact that though the total quantity of steel appears to be increasing, there is a most unsatisfactory unbalance in its production. For example, ordinary articles such as nuts, bolts, and washers, which are made in enormous quantities for agricultural machinery, are almost unobtainable at the present time. In the last week we have had to purchase a quantity of bolts and nuts, not for the bolts which we did not want, but in order to get the nuts. It is quite ridiculous, and is a gross waste of our material; and in the whole realm of steel supply there is something completely out of balance.
I wonder whether the President of the Board of Trade is aware of this. Would he undertake to look into this matter? It is not good enough to talk about steel production by and large; it must be translated into terms of the articles made of steel that go to the manufacture of goods for our export trade. The re-rollers of bright steel are in an extraordinarily bad situation. We know one, who used to supply us, who is closing some of his mills altogether for lack of black bars. Surely that is a serious matter at the present time? For example, in the case of strip steel that used to be obtained before the war in great quantities, we are now having to buy plate, send it out to be guillotined or flame-cut it ourselves into strip. It is a gross waste of time and material, yet these strips have to be obtained and that is the only way in which it can be done.
I do not want to develop this further but I put it to the right hon. Gentleman as a serious defect in our present steel organisation. The export trade of this country, at any rate the small section with which I am acquainted, is being

seriously handicapped because of the lack of proper balance. If it is the Government's policy to take control of great sections of industry like this one, to order the various departments about and tell them what is their business, I suppose we must accept that, but if they take upon themselves that responsibility, they ought to do it properly. The criticism we make on this side of the House is that they take these great powers against the wishes of a great many of us, and abuse the authority and power they have. Until they can prove to us that they are using adequately and effectively the powers Parliament have granted to them, they are not entitled to exercise those powers. Therefore, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give an undertaking to make an inquiry into the complaints I have made and I can assure him that if he does, he will find that things are not at all in a happy position.

9.23 p.m.

Sir Patrick Hannon: In the few observations I have to make I would like to say that the President of the Board of Trade and the Secretary for Overseas Trade are, within the limits of the present situation, making a substantial contribution to the facilities for the development and extension of our export trade. I am glad to begin by paying that compliment because it is not often that we on this side of the House can pay compliments to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite, but in this case the new President of the Board of Trade, with all his fascinating qualities, is at present getting into contact with the whole of the machinery of this country and helping it to expand and intensify our competitive powers in overseas markets.
I would like to ask him a question which I have asked in this House frequently. What is he doing to co-ordinate and vitalise the work of our commercial secretariats and consular services overseas in the direction of helping in every possible respect the expansion of our export trade? In days gone by the commercial secretariats and the consular services made a very modest contribution, if any at all, to the expansion of the export trade of this country. I ask the right hon. Gentleman and the Secretary for Overseas


Trade to give special attention to the possibilities which lie in the way of our overseas organisation comprised of the commercial secretariats and the consular services. Particularly in the case of the South American republics, a little give and take of a gentler quality from time to time would help us to a better understanding and ease the difficulties which arise in the South American market. As the President knows, I have a good deal to do with trade with the Latin-American countries. Sometimes complaints are made which might be dealt with in a more friendly way than frequently happens.
I ask particularly that attention should be directed to the possibilities of trade throughout the Colonial Empire. There is a strong desire manifest everywhere in the Colonial Empire for British commodities, but there is no means of making the qualities and character of those goods known to the people of the Colonial Empire. I hope the Secretary of State for the Colonies will do everything possible to expand our trade in the Colonial Empire. I wish to emphasise that in foreign countries, the Dominions and the Colonial Empire we have an immensely valuable opportunity for the expansion of our export trade, and we should make proper use of it. I hope the President of the Board of Trade, of whose work I am constantly saying good things when speaking in the country, will do what he can in this direction, as I know his intentions are good.

9.26 p.m.

Sir William Darling: I wish to say a word on this important subject. I am particularly interested in the aspect which presents itself to me in my capacity in the manufacturing side of the export trade. No one would doubt the intentions of the Government, but I find a fearfulness up and down the country that raw materials will not be made available, and the tendency is to overbuy and overstock. In the business with which I am concerned, which does an overseas business of more than £1 million a year, we find our stocks are something like four times as great as they were four years ago. We are offered a lot of copper, rather more than we want, but we take it because we feel we might need it in 18 months' time. That kind of thing is happening not only in industry, but in the domestic sphere.
One of the main causes of difficulty is that everyone, from the housewife with her cupboard to the merchant with his wholesale stores, is overstocked. Every housewife has a cupboard of which she would have been proud four or five years ago, and the manufacturer tends to overstock with goods which he will not require for three, six, or twelve months. This building up of stores everywhere has caused an elaborate over-stocking, financial as well as in goods, and a holding up of production. That is the striking factor which impresses me as a result of Government planning. Everyone tends to be overstocked and this not only holds up capital, but also holds up production and limits the amount of goods available for other manufacturers in other industries.
I wish to support my hon. Friend the Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon) in his appeal for Empire development. It seems astonishing after three years of war when this country stood most high in the councils and opinions of every nation of the world, including our enemies, that we should now be in a third, fourth, or fifth place. The Government have done little to mobilise good will which, after all is part of the background of good business not only in our Empire but in every country of the world. Why has this not been done? I visit Australia, Ceylon, the United States and Canada, and I find everywhere a passionate desire to trade and to do business with our country. I find also substantial difficulties and barriers erected against us. How is it that we, the unique people of the world, who as regards our language share a third of the world, are more handicapped and impeded than the people of Holland, the people of Sweden, the people of almost every other country. How has this astonishing thing happened? His Majesty's Government are not Empire minded. They are not British minded. They are animated by some obscure policies which I cannot understand.
This wealth of good will, which was ours for the asking, and which was ours so overwhelmingly three years ago, is being dissipated and lost and is disappearing altogether. There have been many suggestions that we should have conferences. Indeed, conferences dealing with Western Europe, the U.S.S.R. and America have materialised. We have still to learn of a great conference of the English speaking


people of our Commonwealth who want to trade with us, have traded with us and are our traditional friends. Where is this mobilisation of that good will and purchasing power? I do not see it in the policy of the Government. The Empire and Commonwealth would like to see it, but there is evidence of reluctance and hanging back which should not be manifested by the Government in these days of trouble and difficulty.
In this connection there is the importance, which was mentioned by the Secretary of Overseas, of the tourist movement. I believe in selling easily to the customer who does not ask one to send him the goods but who comes here and buys them. That is the tourist movement, which is easy money. Have we made the most of this tourist movement? I represent a constituency which has made a distinguished move forward in this direction. In Edinburgh we had a great international festival last year and we are running one this year, but is there any like or comparable movement by the Government throughout the United Kingdom to attract visitors? There are tepid suggestions in one way and another—the publication of a leaflet here and there—but where is this great passionate advertising which should be done throughout the world to invite visitors to come and see the most remarkable island in all human history, this island which has been denigrated for a generation by some of those who sit on the benches of His Majesty's Government.
How many will want to come to this island and see it three years after the war, with its dramatic history, its great story, its great place in human affairs? Are not these great assets of ours of any moment? They are one of our invisible exports. We could bring here, not the well-to-do, important though they may be from the spending point of view, but the millions of the world, who have money to spend and desire to spend it visiting our shores. I come from a country with a great romantic history, but those who belong to England and Wales also belong to countries with great romantic histories.
What is being done to mobilise those millions of money? Where is our shipping? Would we not be better engaged bringing people to our country, using our ships for passenger purposes rather than sending goods to export markets which

are closed against us or which have decided they have already more than they want? Is there any conception on the part of the Government of the remarkable, lovely, unique character of Great Britain in the eyes of the world? If there is, I do not see it in anything of the Government's I have read or which I have heard from their speeches.
I put these three considerations to the Minister: Are we not tending, because of the unsatisfactory character of Government planning to overstock in every department of industry, to spend money on goods which we cannot immediately use because of the inadequacy, the irregularity or uncertainty of planning? Are we looking at this larger world of the English-speaking people who are by nature and inclination our friends? What are we doing to develop and expand our trade with them? My next point is that this is the show place of the world. There is no part of the world which has anything to show quite as remarkable as has our country. Are these advantages, despite these dire trials of ours, being fully exploited and developed? I am gravely doubtful, but I hope to be reassured.

9.35 P.m.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd (Mid-Bedford): The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade announced the individual export target figures for a wide range of industries, 24 hours, I believe, after he had spoken in the Budget Debate in this House, and this rather unusual timing would at least justify a Debate in this House on these individual target figures. Quite apart from this, the initiative of my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) has been abundantly justified by the quality of the expert opinions elicited by this new Debate. We have had expert speeches from both sides of the House.
Governments come and go. Some do less harm than others, but the selling of British manufactures overseas will remain for a very long time far more in the hands of experts than in the hands of any Government. Not long ago the Secretary for Overseas Trade said something about Government plans to send 100 million yards of cotton goods to Canada. I hope it will not be forgotten, if that happy event does happen, that it will be the manufacturers and workers who


will produce the goods and the British merchants who will sell the goods to the Canadian merchants. That is why the speeches of experts tonight have a particular value, for all Governments need expert advice, and no Government need it more than a Government of planners whose danger always is to lose sight of the difficulties about which the expert knows. The expert also knows that if he makes a mistake about his trade he will rapidly go bankrupt in the world as it is today.
The hon. Member for Central Aberdeen (Mr. Spence) raised a number of points in regard to trade treaties to which I hope we shall have some answer, and the hon. and gallant Member for Antrim (Major Haughton) also raised a number of other important and expert points, as did the hon. and gallant Member for Central Glasgow (Colonel Hutchison) and the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton). May I say in regard to the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton that I believe with him that the expansion of British agriculture is the one single biggest contribution which we can make to aid our adverse trade balance. It is ironical that even if all the Government's plans in relation to agriculture are realised, production next year will be no more than it was when the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) handed over authority to the present Administration. It would be fair to say, although he is not in his place, that the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) also made a number of interesting points. I have just come back from the Middle East, and I know from first-hand experience how much he personally is doing to push British exports in that particular part of the world.
We are engaged tonight in considering new target figures and I hope it will not introduce too great a note of controversy into this Debate if I say that I, in common with a number of my hon. Friends, approach these figures with a certain amount of cynicism. All previous calculations of the present Government have gone wrong. I do not intend to go into the figures in great detail, but as a warning, in case we are over optimistic, I would remind the House of one or two facts. The imports last year, which we had hoped would be in the realm of 80 to 85 per cent. of the 1938 figures to provide essential raw materials and other

things, only reached a figure of 75 per cent. But owing to what was an apparently unanticipated rise in the cost, the actual cost was —124 million more than was forecast last year. As for exports, instead of reaching 140 per cent. on 1938 as we had hoped, they reached about 120 per cent., and our deficit last year was not, as we were told it would be, £350 million, but £675 million. On Government expenditure abroad, the calculations of the Government were £36 million out; our invisible earnings were £90 million out, and errors over manpower ranged from 30 per cent. in one industry to no less than 1,900 per cent. in another key industry.
We ought to be a little chary of accepting these estimates as being something which will really be attained. Generally, as a result of the faulty forecasting last year, the gold and dollar drain on our resources was no less than 50 per cent. greater than our overall deficit and was, as the House and the country know only too well, over £1,000 million in that one year. Can we be sure that these estimates will be more realistic? We have now had three months of the current year. We have had some indication of the shape of things to come. In the White Paper we were told that we might have to expect to lose £220 million of gold and dollars in the first six months, but now, after only three months have gone by, £150 million have already gone.
We have just had the March trading figures. It is good news for everybody that last month we exported £120 million worth of goods, but it is not so often realised—though the Government know it very well in their secret counsels—that the visible adverse balance for last March was £58 million, the largest figure for an adverse balance since August to September of 1947. I am afraid that that shows that the estimates in one important particular in the Economic Survey have gone wrong. It was the Economic Survey which this House discussed only last week.
There were small deficits in January and February and so, taken with the March figures, our total adverse balance for the first quarter of 1948 is £126 million. The White Paper told us that the deficit on our balance of payments visible trading account for the first six months would be £87 million. Already, after three months, it is £126 million. That


means that if the White Paper estimates which we discussed last week are to be realised, the next period of a few months must produce for us a surplus of £40 million. It is very difficult to reconcile these alarming figures with the recent statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, generally speaking, imports into this country in the first three months have not been more than was anticipated, for if they were anticipated at that figure, it makes curious the forecast of the White Paper.
Therefore, we might be forgiven if we have a certain measure of lack of confidence about the figures which were given to the House and to the country a few days ago. The Secretary for Overseas Trade in his explanation of the changes in individual target—in so far as he did give an explanation—did not add very much to the knowledge of the House. We were told that these changes in individual targets were made necessary because the first estimates were made under some misapprehension. That was the statement of the President of the Board of Trade to a Press conference. I think that it is fair to quote it in that way. There was some misapprehension as to the supply of certain key raw materials. It was said that there was going to be less steel available for the period than it had been hoped would be available. As a result of that, certain exports involving the use of steel had been cut down and textile exports were being stepped up instead. The balance, in so far as it is possible for the loss of steel exports, is to be made up by certain increases in textile exports.
I want to say a word or two about the steel trade, but before I do so I should like to make one or two broad suggestions as to the sort of handicaps under which all industries are now labouring under the present Administration, handicaps that are going to make it exceedingly difficult for almost every one of the industries in the individual target list to achieve their targets. The first handicap, as it seems to us, is the attempt of the present Government to plan the whole of the productive and economic life of the country from Whitehall, and not only to plan it but to run it. The muddle in the steel allocations, the absurd situation in the brickfields—and no one knows that more than I because, in my own constituency,

large numbers of men who are now being put off work were told only a few months ago to expand production—the argument used by my hon. Friend for Central Aberdeen (Mr. Spence) about the failure of a planned economy also to give planned markets—all these suggest the major difficulty under which British exporters and the workers in the export trades are bound to suffer.
The second difficulty seems to me to apply particularly to one great visible export, that of steel, and one invisible export, that of insurance. It is the uncertainty as to the Government's intentions which industries they propose to try to nationalise next. Since the hon. Gentleman, earlier on, paid tribute to the value of insurance receipts in this country, I hoped the right hon. Gentleman will take the opportunity of saying that the insurance companies are not going to have their businesses interfered with by this Government or any later Socialist Government that might come about in the far future.
As for steel, I think it is straining the credulity of anyone rather far for us to have to listen to the constant encomiums now passed by Ministers on the steel trade, a trade that is surpassing its target, while, on the other hand, we all know very well that, in the centre of Government, at No. 10, Downing Street, a bitter battle is at this moment being waged whether to nationalise steel or not. We know perfectly well that the Minister of Health is the chief protagonist of the nationalisation of steel. It may well be that, after his failure to deal successfully with the doctors, he may be all the more anxious to achieve a triumph in regard to steel. It was that particular right hon. Gentleman who, at the last Election, called exports "a Tory will-o'-the-wisp," but now he has to sit alongside Ministers who say every day "Export or die." It is a curious irony that the main threat to our great steel industry should come from someone who expressed himself like that as recently as the last Election.
The reason given for the lowering of certain targets, particularly steel, by the President of the Board of Trade does make the position of the steel trade a little clearer. At the time of the White Paper, the impression was conveyed to some people that, in some way or other,


the steel trade had not come up to expectations and had not produced what was expected of it, but the reason given by the right hon. Gentleman at his Press conference for the lowering of the September target for exports, apart from the saturation of certain overseas markets, was that less steel would be available for use in the engineering trade than would be required to meet the original targets. The right hon. Gentleman added—I think these are his words—
Some of the original targets were unreliable in the light of steel supplies likely to be available in 1948.
This, as "The Times" pointed out, does shift the emphasis, which, in the Survey, was put on the serious shortage of steel, to where it should belong—on the targets and not the steel industry itself. Before I leave the steel industry, I should like to join with my hon. Friends to express surprise that there is no planned increase in industrial output this year when the steel industry has surpassed all its targets with such brilliant results. I hope we shall hear something as to the reason for that rather curious fact.
The last of the broad thoughts which I would like to give to the House concerns the difficulty of all industries to export the required amount, and of all the workers in those industries to give the extra 10 per cent. for which they are asked, so long as taxation is so high and adding so much to our export costs. As has appeared in the House recently, the national income is now some £9,000 million, and of that income £3,500 million, or some 40 per cent., is taken directly by the Government in taxation, and quite apart from that fact the average citizen has also to pay a great deal of money in rates and other local charges. We are always being asked to compare 1948 with 1938, and if that is a fair comparison for export recovery, it is also a fair comparison for Government expenditure. Government expenditure for 1937–38 was £833 million. This year it is £3,250 million, involving as it does a heavy charge on all our exports and a very serious disincentive to the man who does not think it worth his while—this applies to all levels—to work a little harder in order to give a great deal more money to the State.
While on the subject of the cost of exports consequent on Government policy,

I hope the remarks of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Fylde (Colonel Lancaster) will be remembered. We have had no budget as yet, but the probable loss on the Coal Board's activities last year was some £20 million, and we may find ourselves faced with an uneconomic price for export coal which will handicap all our export activities, and will also, of course, add enormously to our costs at home.
We believe all these difficulties will remain so long as we have the present Government in power wedded to these theories which are wholly out of place in the fierce competitive world with which we are dealing. But we have got this Government; I recognise that fact. It is a sorry thought of which nobody in the country can be ignorant for long. How are we to get over these difficulties, even with the considerable handicaps under which we live? Of course, we can do a great deal more to increase our invisible exports, and I hope that the Government will listen to the pleas made on this side of the House and to any particular arguments for the restoration, for example, of the Liverpool Cotton Exchange and the other money-making organisations which were casually swept away by the Government after the intoxication of the General Election.
A great deal also can be done by bilateral agreements, and I hope in this connection, as I have said before, that the pleas of my hon. Friend the Member for Central Aberdeen will be considered. But even with these various measures, which are only palliatives, the great problem will remain unsolved. The restoration of British trade and our recovery of an export position in the world commensurate with our needs will put upon our people an impossible strain so long as we try to have at one and the same time Socialism in this country and 19th century multilateral trading in the world as a whole. To many of us the answer to our particular problem was given by my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) in the Budget Debate last week. He crystallised in a single paragraph what many of us feel should be the main direction of British export and economic policy. He said:
..in the creation, by mutual co-operation, of trading areas large enough to enable us to exist in the modern world; in reciprocal


trade agreements—not necessarily bilateral—and payments agreements which themselves provide the finance of international trade; and in the radical reorganisation and integration of the economy of Western Europe."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th April. 1948; Vol 449, c. 852.]
He went on, as every hon. Member who heard him will remember, to ridicule the idea of a whole host of highly complicated industrial economic States plunging simultaneously into a world Customs Union.
It is this thought which brings me to the last part of what I wish to say. It is a fact that the publication of the individual target export figures came almost simultaneously with the Blue Book on the Havana Conference which has been taking place, with the representatives of some 50 nations, to discover how to restore world multilateral trade. To those of us who believe that multilateral world trade demands a settled political world, this attempt to restore something in the present unsettled conditions which cannot have a place in the world as it is today is a tragic error. When it is accompanied by a demand to break up our system of Imperial Preferences, it makes the error all the greater. At a time when we need a large trading unit more than ever before, at a time when we have the makings of this unit in the British Empire, attempts are being made at Havana and elsewhere to make a breach in this Imperial organisation. I hope the Government will ponder before they take any very drastic steps. These proposals cannot become part of the international trading law of the world until at least half of the States approve of them, unless one year has elapsed, when I think the vote of some 20 States can give that international binding authority.
Perhaps I may be forgiven if for one moment I give a brief recapitulation of the economic trade at the close of the last century and in the century through which we are now passing. In the seventies of the last century we exported two-thirds of all the manufactured goods of the world. By the time the first world war broke out, that figure had fallen to one-third. By the time the second Labour Government went out—this was not their fault; it is merely historical dating—it had fallen 'to one-fifth, and of this one-fifth, one-half

was to territories protected by Imperial Preference. In the year before the last war started, 1938, 32 per cent. of all our manufactured exports went to the British Empire—32 per cent.—but only eight per cent. went to the rest of the world. This eight per cent. is the measure of our competitive position even before this last world war. It was to the protected markets of the British Empire that even then we had to look—and that was in a world, though full of chaos, which was certainly quite tranquil compared with a world with which we are dealing today.
It appears to us to be madness to break this up, particularly now that the concert of Europe is over. We have not looked at the Havana recommendations—personally I had them only 24 hours ago. I see in this all the old language and alarming phrases which we got to know at the Geneva Conference and through the Charter of that time. The right hon. Gentleman will remember the phrases, I think —the reduction of tariffs, the reduction or elimination of Imperial Preferences, and in another part of this Havana Charter it is proposed that there shall be no increase whatever in Dominion preferences.
At the present time we have in the British Empire undeveloped territories, crying out for capital construction and for consumer goods. The trade per head of the population of this country in the year before the war was £30. In India it was 19s. In the Colonies it was £11. There is here an immense field for fruitful enterprise.

Mr. Stokes: The hon. Member says they are crying out for consumer goods. Will he tell us precisely where?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: In East and West Africa there is a crying need, and particularly the report of the groundnut scheme indicates that, where we are trying to provide new sources for food supply.

Mr. Stokes: But surely that is very limited?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It could be expanded enormously. I believe it will turn out to be one of the most fruitful sources of export. It will be argued in defence of the Havana proposals that they spring from the Atlantic Charter and from Article 7 of the Mutual Aid Agreement,


but I want once more to remind the Committee that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford, at a time of enormous danger in our affairs, safeguarded the position of Imperial Preference by including in the Atlantic Charter the words "without prejudice to existing obligations."
I should like to close by asking two or three questions of the right hon. Gentleman relating to the Havana Charter, because they are relevant to our capacity to meet our export target. Is it a fact that the British Colonies will be able to give the Mother Country, and the Mother Country give in return, preference in the Colonial Empire, so long as they share a common quota in the International Monetary Fund? Secondly, is it a fact that if we agree to the Havana Charter we shall not be able to give any new preference to any single Dominions, nor will the Dominions be able to give us any preferences or give them to each other? I believe that is true. We would welcome some statement on that from the right hon. Gentleman.
A rather significant event happened some weeks ago, which has some bearing on this particular matter, on which there has been a number of confusing accounts. Sir Earle Page came back from West Africa and said in Australia that African Colonies were not allowed to import goods from the British Dominions which Europe could supply. There were partial answers to that, and finally an answer was given by a Government spokesman who said that the Colonies were free to import essential goods from wherever they liked, and most of the Australian and New Zealand exports, for example, foodstuffs, were essential goods. He added as to non-essential goods:
The Colonial Government are not able to provide hard currencies for their purchases, and His Majesty's Government's international obligations prevent them from putting less restrictions on imports from the Dominions than they put on imports from, say, the United States of America.
But—and this must be very difficult for our friends in the Dominions to accept—the spokesman added:
They are, however, free to impose less restrictions on imports from the United Kingdom and other Colonies and war shattered European countries.
Perhaps reasons like this are the reasons for the removal of the subsidy on im-

ports of Irish linen into Australia referred to by the hon. and gallant Member for Antrim (Major Haughton). If the Mother Country shows that we are breaking up Imperial Preference, we cannot blame the Dominions for doing the same. I feel that in this we have an immense responsibility and that this House should read some of the Debates that took place in the British Dominions. Only a few weeks ago Mr. Menzies said:
Why should the U.S.A., which has a preference among its own States, going to the length of complete international free trade, and which has at all times maintained the right to grant preferences to countries like Cuba, say to the countries of the British Empire that it they are to enter into Imperial trade in the full sense of the term there must be no discriminatory treatment. The purpose of this policy seems to be to enable the U.S.A. to sell more, yet the problem is not how it shall sell more but that it shall buy more. Until that happens the dollar problem will not be solved.
One of the leading Members of the Liberal Party in Australia used these words, which are very humiliating:
Imperial Preference has been bargained away not by us but principally by Great Britain.
He added:
It is also true that such preferences as remain could be bargained away, and I believe that if this agreement be implemented they unquestionably will be bargained away.
I think that it would be a sorry day for this country if we agreed, without proper discussion in this House, to any hasty decision arrived at by our representatives or delegates at Havana. It would be a crying tragedy if the one great sea trading community in the world which has survived unchallenged the war—the one great trading community united by the sea—should be broken up by the present Government.
At a time when we are encouraging other groups of nations to get together and co-ordinate their economics, it would be a great tragedy if we should start by disrupting our Empire. I am confident that, if the export figures which the right hon. Gentleman has announced—and which we all hope will be attained—are to be attained, it will be best done by further measures of Imperial co-operation and by turning to a united Empire and a united Western Europe, with the Colonies of Western Europe included, and attempting to build up from that large beginning a trading organisation of the world.

10.6 p.m.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Harold Wilson): Like the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) I would like also, as did my hon. Friend, to express our thanks to the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) for raising this subject today. The result of his having done so has been to provoke an extremely useful Debate and one in which, as the hon. Gentleman has just said, we have heard experts in all parts of the House making a contribution to this extremely important subject of export targets.
I was a little surprised when I saw the terms of the Amendment which the hon. Member had put down. He expresses alarm at the revision of targets and concern at the lack of definite plans for their achievement. After we have heard as much as we did last Monday from Opposition speakers, throwing away the whole idea of having targets or planning of any kind, it is a welcome sight to see the hon. Gentleman expressing concern and alarm about these targets, and especially his concern at the lack of definite plans. I welcome this enthusiasm on his part, even if other of his hon. Friends do not share it, for plans and for planning.
The Opposition position rather reminds me of a small boy some time ago before the nationalisation of the railways. He was standing on Wigan Station and, on asking whether the 3·30 train had yet come in, he was told that the 1·15 had not arrived. He then told the ticket collector that he thought that was very bad and asked why they had a time table if they could not keep to it. The ticket collector replied, "We have to have a time table because if we did not you would never know how late the trains were and you would have nowt to grumble at." I can think of better reasons than that for giving the Opposition something to grumble at when objectives are not achieved.
It is certainly true that the hon. Gentleman's concern about the possibilities that we should fail to achieve these plans has led to an extremely interesting and useful Debate. I would like first of all to deal with one or two points he raised which were left by my hon. Friend for me to deal with. One matter about which he talked was the coal industry. Like him, I entirely agree—as anyone in this House must agree—that the fact that coal

exports have restarted is one of the most important things that have happened in our export trade this year. I must remind him again that, if between the two wars our coal mines had made the same increase and improvement in their technical efficiency that other Continental coalfields had made, we could have exported last year 100 million tons of coal, even after meeting all the needs of home industry and of the domestic consumer. I need not remind him what that would have meant, whether in terms of foreign exchange, bilateral bargaining power, or the reconstruction of Europe.
The hon. Gentleman went into some statistical flights in coal matters and, as he knows, I, too, have indulged in coal statistics a little in the past. He calculated —as far as I can see, rightly—that, at the rate of output of 4¼ million tons for 52 weeks in the year, it would be possible to achieve an output of 221 million tons. He then said that that surely ought to lead to some change in the target, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman is prepared to allow the miners a holiday.

Mr. Hollis: The Minister of Fuel and Power said that, although the weekly production was at present 4¼ million tons, he hoped it would go up to 4,600,000 tons. I allowed for the holidays and, even allowing for that, I was asking why he could not get the 221 million tons.

Mr. Wilson: He did say that, and I entirely agree, but he will realise, as we all do, that the production of coal is a very seasonal thing and that at certain times of the year, particularly in the early part of the year, absenteeism resulting from sickness and sometimes transport difficulties arise. I would not like, nor am I sure would he like, the impression to go out to the miners that we are thinking of the coal production on a purely 52 week basis.
The hon. Member for Devizes made several points in regard to the steel industry, and it is right that I should deal with them because the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) also referred to that industry as did a number of other hon. Members. The hon. Member for Devizes referred to what he called a miscalculation on the part of the Government, and there seems to have been some profitless discussion as to whether there is or is not a shortage of steel, and whether it is or


it is not right that the steel industry is doing all that it might do. I should like to make one or two points as I see them.
In the first place, there is an acute shortage of steel, and, secondly, it is a fact that production at the present time is proceeding at a high level. As I said in a broadcast yesterday, the steel industry is doing a magnificent job. It is also equally true to say that the shortage of steel at the present time is due partly to the difficulty of importing certain types of semi-finished steel and scrap and also to the total inadequacy of steel capacity in this country, which is a thing for which the Government bears no responsibility whatsoever. It has been suggested that the Government made a serious miscalculation on this question last Autumn. The other clay I said at a Press conference that the amount of steel available to the engineering industry has turned out to be not so great as it was hoped it would be for a number of reasons. One of them is the very big increase in production in many of the steel using industries, because as is well known the mining, textile and farm machinery, which are far and away above the prewar figures, have taken more steel than was expected.
It is a fact that last autumn we felt—and rightly felt—that we must put our whole concentration on the export trade because of the serious foreign exchange position. It is also a fact that it has not been possible to cut every steel user as much as we then thought it might be possible. The hon. Member for Devizes asked whether the steel industry would be better run by the people at present in charge or by the members of a Government who calculated their figures wrongly. I should like to disillusion him about that. There is no question of the Government giving different answers to the steel industry. Let me remind him that the Government were under strong pressure from the summer of 1945 onwards to loosen or to remove a number of the controls on the consumption of steel, because at that time in the industry there was fear of serious redundancy and that there would not be enough work to keep the industry going full out.
As late as 1946 leading steel makers were going round the country touting for orders of all kinds because their calculations as to the steel supply and demand were far out indeed. I could not accept

either what the hon. Member for Devizes said or, indeed, what was said by the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling) about the tendency under rationing and control conditions to pile up unnecessary stocks. I would remind them that if there were a free market and if there were an expectation—as there might be in certain conditions—of a serious price increase—as would undoubted happen in a free market—the tendency to accumulate stocks ahead of that increase would be more serious than anything that happens under a control or rationing system.
I would like to say a word about textiles. The point of the speech of the hon. Gentleman opposite was our policy of reaching a manpower target in the textile industry. I agree with him and with what the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) said last year. This is now a key issue in our Economic Survey for 1948. Let us take the cotton industry, where the target for manpower is 325,000 by the end of this year. That is a very high figure. The present target is in the region of 275,000. We are tackling this problem. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour has been taking charge of this matter and doing a very fine job in a number of directions.
Our first aim is to get Lancashire labour back into the mills. Whatever we may try to do by bringing in people from other countries, our main aim is to get Lancashire labour back. The cotton industry has a rather bad history, so any attempt to persuade people to come back into the mills means that we have to answer some very awkward questions. We have tried as well as we can in present circumstances to answer those questions and to give the pledges that the people need before they will come back. There is a drive to improve welfare amenities in the industry and the Ministry of Labour inspectorate has been very greatly strengthened to look into any points in this connection which may be raised. The mill people themselves have made a very fine effort to get the welfare amenities of the industry up to the standard to which they should conform. This is a difficult time in which to do it, because of shortages. In spite of the steel shortage, steel has been made available for this desirable purpose. Although the process takes time


we may say that welfare conditions in the cotton industry are far better than they have ever been before in its whole history.
Another question which comes up every time as hon. Members opposite who have been in contact with this matter are aware, concerns nurseries. If we are to get Lancashire people back into the Lancashire mills it will to a very large extent mean getting Lancashire women back into the mills. That matter raises the question of nurseries, nursery schools, and nursery clubs. The Ministry of Health have just started a special drive among local welfare authorities for the provision of nurseries. They are pressing forward on this matter at the present moment. The Ministry of Education has been pressing local education authorities not only to make schools available for the purpose but also to provide supervision outside school hours and during periods of school holiday.
I want to stress all these things. These are not jobs which the Government can do; they are for local communities and particularly local authorities. Employers have done some very useful work. The Ministry of Works have made 100 huts available for the purpose of privately-run day nurseries in the factories. At present there are 56 day nurseries in operation by private firms. Another 36 projects are being considered and worked out. Local authorities have 47 nurseries, and more are being planned. We estimate that if there were enough nursery accommodation available in Lancashire, something like 10,000 women or perhaps even more, would come into the mills this year. I am sure that the House will recognise the difficulty of getting nursery accommodation for them.
Another thing we are doing to get labour back—it is a thing we do not like doing—is to try to damp down activities in some of the competing industries in the cotton towns. We were all glad when it was possible to get into Lancashire some other industries to prevent there being an undue dependence on cotton, but at the present time it is necessary to damp down one or two of the industries, particularly in these years of great shortage, and to enable labour to transfer from those industries into the mills. We are having a big drive for part-time workers and evening shifts. An agreement was recently signed between the two sides of the industry for evening shifts in the weaving

sheds. Over 4,300 are so employed and now there are 4,500 on organised systematic part-time work on the spinning side.
We are hoping to get this year what we did not get in the past year, that is, a substantial number of new school leavers coming into the mills. Obviously with the raising of the school-leaving age we could not get them in during the last year, but now that year has come to an end and there is a growing confidence on the part of Lancashire people in the cotton industry, we have great hopes that far more juveniles than usual will enter the mills. As another measure, we have by administrative action suspended the calling up for six months of men employed on productive processes in the industry. We have plans for new recruits for the industry whether from this country or outside, and here our big problem is again accommodation. Our present plans for hostels will provide accommodation for something like 9,000 by the end of the year, and we are also working out schemes for assisted travel.
On the question of foreign workers, I have not much to add to what my right hon. Friend has already told the House. With representatives of both sides of the industry, my right hon. Friend has recently been in Germany and Austria attempting to recruit workers. It is not an easy thing about which to persuade any industry, and I want to pay tribute to the helpful attitude of the people of Lancashire and especially to the very hearty and hospitable welcome the Lancashire housewives have given to the foreign workers who have come here.
As has been said, this problem is not only a question of manpower, but of getting more production with the available labour. At present a ballot on overtime is taking place. The Committee will not want me to say anything about that. We are pressing ahead, as the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. Scott-Elliot) reminded us, with the redeployment of labour in the cotton industry and we are to have discussions about this with both sides of the industry in the very near future. This matter is so much a question of confidence. We cannot easily get workers in this or any other industry with a similar history to give up their practices and habits unless we give them confidence that the industry will not go back to the conditions of unemployment and short


time which they remember were for so long a part of their working lives.
It is only 10 years since there were 142,000 unemployed in the Lancashire cotton industry. That is more than half the present labour force, and it was 36 per cent. of the then labour force. Fifteen per cent. of them were working on short time, and there was an enormous amount of unrecorded unemployment, such as workers working two looms, which did not get into the unemployment or short time figures. The men and women of Lancashire remember the wages they were getting in those days. The Ministry of Labour census for 1938 shows that men were getting less than 51s. a week and women less than 31s. 6d. These are things which the industry does not easily forget, and they are in people's minds when we appeal to them to go back into the mills and put aside any practices they have restricting output.
Another thing in the minds of the Lancashire people is the fear of Japanese competition, and that is why I welcome the initiative taken by the Cotton Board in the discussions with the United States textile industry. It was at my request that Sir Raymond Streat went over to the United States to discuss this question with the American industry, and the two industries have now had serious and important discussions. They have agreed on a joint report which is at present under consideration by us. It is too early to say what our reaction to it will be, but naturally I can say that a report which is the work of two industries in these two countries obviously must carry great weight with any Government or Governments that have to consider it.
I do not think there is anything more important that anyone can do in the cotton industry today—and I am appealing to hon. Gentlemen on all sides of the House because they have offered to come forward and take part in this recruitment for the production drive—there is nothing more important than to give Lancashire confidence that it will-not go back to the old days of unemployment and short time, and in that I agree with what the hon. Member for Ipswich. (Mr. Stokes) said.
The other point to which the hon. Gentleman referred, was emigration. I think he followed the noble Lord the

Member for South Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) in referring to the tendency of people to want to leave this country. We know the facts of this, and again I want to suggest that the House should get this matter into proper perspective. Nearly every time one opens certain newspapers, one finds that a lot is made of the apparent desire of people to leave this country under conditions of a Socialist Government. I went to Australia in 1926 and there were a large number of people on my boat, mostly from Scotland, trying to flee from a Government which was certainly not a Socialist Government, to find a new life in Australia. May I say that the number of people who have left this country monthly since the end of the war is under half the monthly number of people who left this country as emigrants after the lest war—[An HON. MEMBER: "Shipping."]—when the shortage of shipping was no less great than it is now. These figures are never published because they are not news.
I would like now to turn to the speech of the hon. Member for Central Aberdeen (Mr. Spence), who referred principally to the textile targets. He commented on the increase in the cotton target and the difficulties of selling cottons abroad in many markets. I entirely agree, but I would remind him that there is a ready market for British cottons in Canada, where there are no restrictions, and, provided our people can sell at a reasonable price, there should be no difficulty this year in attaining the high target to which the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford referred. Like him I agree that if and when that target is reached, as we trust it will be, it will be a fine piece of team work by the workers, the managements and the merchants concerned with cotton exports.
On the increase in the woollen target to which the hon. Gentleman referred, he seemed a little more doubtful than I was about the swing in world fashion changes in wool. I would only tell him that that was the unanimous view of the woollen export group which I met to discuss this a week ago. when this point was made strongly. Differentiating between woollen and worsted goods, I would remind him that although we have increased the woollen target, we have not increased the woollen target for piece goods because of the difficulties to which he


referred, the import restrictions abroad. The increases are in tops and yarns, where there is a ready demand abroad.

Mr. Spence: Would the right hon. Gentleman give the exact figures? He will agree, I am sure, that tops and spinning are a bottleneck. Would he give the figures of the monthly sterling value of tops and yarns which he expects to export?

Mr. Wilson: I have given figures to the Press but I have not them with me. However, I would tell the hon. Member that the yarn figure is doubled while the tops figure is increased considerably. entirely agree that it would be false economy to be exporting these things if it meant denying the essential raw materials to our own manufacturers, and the new export target in tops—a section of the industry where, as he knows, there has been a substantial increase in production recently—has been fixed so that it will still provide sufficient tops for the home manufacturers. We will certainly keep that question closely under review.
The hon. Member referred to the question of regulations and controls in utility cloth, meaning that there are two lines of manufacture and two standards of workmanship involved, Of course, he knows that we are trying to simplify all controls and regulations, particularly in the textile industry. If there is anything of value that we can do, we will do it. Discussions are going on with the industry at the present time to simplify them further, while still maintaining the essential object of the national policy I am sure the hon. Gentleman does not wish us to abolish utility clothing at the present time. That is a thing about which the country would feel extremely irate if we were to suggest it, He suggested that utility represents a very low standard. I agree that it is different from some of the export lines, but it is of very much higher quality than much of the clothing produced for our people before the war.
The hon. Gentleman referred to import restrictions abroad—and I think this is probably the most important point raised in the whole Debate. In my remarks a week ago I drew attention to this and said that I thought it was the biggest handicap that our exporters were facing this year. We are well aware of it.

I am sure the hon. Gentleman was not suggesting, though he said the Government were casual in our trade agreements, that import restrictions were not affecting this Government's activities materially The trade agreements are necessary weapons that we must have to fight import restrictions. The restrictions are imposed by countries in serious balance of payments difficulties, and I agree with the hon. Member and other hon. Members that they are very much tighter and more damaging to our trade now than they were before the war.
I agree that we need in the long term to trade on a multilateral basis, and negotiations on every separate parcel or type of goods that we sell abroad are not our objective. Unless we have bilateral agreements in present conditions, not only could we not get our raw materials, but we would have no weapons available in this country to force open these markets. One hon. Member said that the Government are afraid to say "Boo!" to an Egyptian. We can say "Boo!" as much as we like to the Egyptians, but it does not open markets to British textiles. There is only one way, and that is by these bilateral agreements. I would like to ask hon. Gentlemen opposite, who have been critical on this, but who have, on the whole, been very fair and reasonable about it, how they think free enterprise could have done anything to open these markets to British goods.
The hon. Member for Central Aberdeen spoke of the failure to push certain agreements to their logical conclusion. He referred to the agreements with Denmark and Argentina. I said last week that was not happy with part of the Argentina agreement, but I did think that Sir Clive Baillieu had done a very fine job in the face of very real difficulties and we are most grateful to the Federation of British Industries for releasing him for this purpose. I do not think anyone would wish to criticise the agreement he brought home, but all of us would have liked to see a far higher percentage of imports that could be paid for by British exports, particularly exports of traditional lines, many representing inessential goods. We are still holding discussions with the Argentine Government about this £10 million.

Major Haughton: Is it true that Mr. Miranda is coming to this country? What steps are being taken by the Board of


Trade to meet him and formalise this agreement for £10 million?

Mr. Wilson: I would not like to say whether Mr. Miranda is coming or not, but I can tell the hon. Member that one of the difficulties that we have had in pushing this agreement to its logical conclusion has been the illness of Mr. Miranda during the last two or three weeks. If he does come, he will get a ready welcome in this country, and we shall be able to discuss with him not only this point, but also one which I have particularly in mind, namely, our desire to push the figure for British exports to a much higher level than fro million. We are in discussion with the Danish Government in a similar way. As I said last week, the Swedish Agreement has already led to considerable raising of import restrictions on British goods. There are to be further discussions between ourselves and the Swedes next month, which I hope will lead to a considerable loosening of these restrictions, if not an open general licence for British goods.
Another hon. Member referred to the new developments in rayon in Northern Ireland, of which I have had full details. I discussed the matter with the Minister of Commerce for Northern Ireland last week. Like him, I considered the developments most encouraging, and, like him, I hope that we are going to get over the difficulties which the hon. Member mentioned.
Several hon. Members raised the question of agricultural machinery. The question was whether the cut in steel to that industry falls on the home market, and also whether the cut in exports means that the home market will get more. The point is, I think, that there is not sufficient steel for all the needs of the agricultural machinery industry. We have made a cut in the export programme to ensure that any cut which has to be made falls upon the export side, and not on the home side. The same is true in the case of textiles. There, again, shortage of production will fall upon the export programme, and not upon the home programme.

Mr. Turton: Can the right hon. Gentleman reply to the point I raised about the answer given on 22nd January?

Mr. Wilson: I would like to, but to do so I would have to go into details of steel allocation. As I am only talking about export targets, perhaps the hon. Member would put down a Question on the subject. The hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Granville) raised the question of new entrants to industry and the denial of supplies to new entrants. I dealt with this last week pretty fully, and I invite him to look at what I then said. I hate this kind of thing, and if I could get a different system to control scarce raw materials I would do so.
The hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr Stokes) made some comments about German scrap and machine tools. I would like to look into the points which he raised, and would be glad to discuss them with him. With regard to prices for capital goods, I agree with what he said. But we must leave this to the manufacturers. We do not fix prices for capital goods. We must leave it to the manufacturers, in present conditions, to get what they can, subject to any protection in the matter of keeping their markets. We do not want them to try to fleece the foreigner. That would lose markets, and we would suffer in the long term for what we had done in the short term.

Mr. Stokes: May I have an answer to my question regarding steel?

Mr. Wilson: The hon. Member wanted to know why, when steel output is at a higher level than in the autumn, there is still not enough steel to meet the engineering industry's export target. I thought I had dealt with that fairly fully. I will go back to it, and say the answer is that it is partly due to the fact that certain other users of steel have increased more than we anticipated, though we are very glad to see that they have; and secondly, that certain users of steel whom we hoped we might be able to cut, we have not been able to cut as much as we had hoped.

Mr. Stokes: Is it due to armaments?

Mr. Wilson: No, it has nothing to do with armaments. I can assure the hon. Member on that. The hon. Member for Howdenshire (Mr. Odey) is an expert in the leather industry. I would prefer not to go into this very technical subject now, but I will look into the matter, and I will be glad to go into it with him another time. The hon. Member for


Montrose (Mr. Maclay) referred to shipping. I am in no sense competent to speak on that, but due note will be taken of what he said. He referred also to the need for a steadier supply of materials, and there again I must refer him to what I said last week. No removal of controls or alteration in the rationing system could possibly assist this matter, where there is a shortage of raw materials and shortage of capacity at home. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Glasgow (Colonel Hutchison), like several other hon. Members, referred to "other invisible exports," and asked what it includes. Well, I can tell him it is mainly accounted for by oil. This is the balance of a number of items not appearing in the trade accounts, and the freight and tanker hire, for some reason or other, is shown under this item, and not under shipping. I do not know what hon. Members opposite want to do; whether they want to debate matters affecting the National Coal Board, or go on with the general Debate.

Mr. Nigel Birch: No, go on; it is too late.

Mr. Wilson: A large number of important points have been raised, and I do not want to be accused of running away; although I think I have covered most of them. I could mention the speech of the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton); he referred to agricultural machinery, and I have already spoken about that. I would like to emphasise that, with all the shortage of steel, the production of farm machinery and similar equipment is considerably above what the figures were for prewar, and, as he knows, coming as he does from an agricultural constituency, the standard of equipment on our farms is far better than it was before the war. But we should like more production both for the home market as well as for export, and the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) is quite right when he says that there is a ready domand for our agricultural machinery overseas.
The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton spoke about sugar. I think, from what he said, that he must have been reading the main leader in yesterday's "Sunday Express," and I would say that criticism of the kind comes ill from the party which has pressed us on this side to increase our

invisible exports. I say that because the increase in sugar refining in this country has proved a valuable invisible export. We are capturing new markets for refined sugar, and I must assure him that these exports are not taken from what 'would be available for United Kingdom consumption. In fact, the sugar is bought separately out of the proceeds of the refined sugar which we sell, and his laudable desire for an increase in his sweet ration—in which I support him—would not, I am sure, damp his enthusiasm for the development of such a healthy earner of hard currency.
Then textiles and clothing were discussed. I know what many hon. Members have in mind, particularly those who represent agricultural constituencies, and what they feel about Eire, but I am sure that they do not want us to impose a detailed system of export licences to make certain that these goods do not go to countries where we do not want to see them go. Reference has been made to lisle stockings from Czechoslovakia. Our traditional exporters are sending more goods to Czechoslovakia than we are getting from her, and it is senseless for us to bring into this country relatively unnecessary goods. I do not want to make any reference to Czechoslovakia in a political sense, but that is the position; we bring in these goods while exporting similar things to other countries, and if we can export them to countries where we gain dollars, it is worth doing although, on the face of it, it looks crazy.

Mr. Turton: I think the right hon. Gentleman has missed the point. We are exporting fully-fashioned lisle stockings worth 4s. 6d. a pair in the shops and are importing similar stockings worth 10s. 6d.

Mr. Wilson: Those of the 4s. type which are exported get 4s. worth of dollars or represent goods worth 4s. worth of dollars. I am sorry about the high price in Czechslovakia. They have some strange ideas about what is a fair selling price and we have made it clear that if there is to be any continuation of such trade, they must bring their prices down.
I thank the hon. Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon) for his very kind remarks. He referred to the question of our commercial secretariats abroad. We are very much alive to this question and


the help they can give to our exporters. I am always ready and anxious to hear the hon. Gentleman's views, or those of any other hon. Members, about how we might improve the services given through these secretariats and how we can bring to the notice of the British exporters the services which are standing ready to help them if they would only come and get them.
The hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling) made a point about tourism. I would like to remind him that all transport services to this country this year are fully booked up, both ships and planes. I agree about the importance of tourism, but I do not think it would make any difference this year.

Sir W. Darling: What about a few liberty ships?

Mr. Wilson: Finally the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford said that it seemed a little strange that I did not give these targets in the House before last Monday's Debate. The figures were far too detailed to give in the House. I gave the information in response to questions by individual pressmen. I am sure that if I had published the figures before last Monday, the same point might have been raised. In fact, they were not ready, but I announced them in broad terms on Monday and gave the details later.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the March figures for imports and exports, and said it was not realised that the import deficit was higher last September. I am sure he is not trying to accuse me of concealment because the facts were first given in my speech on Monday. He referred to Havana. I will not follow him in going into this in any detail, but I will repeat the pledge which has been given that the House will have a full opportunity of debating it before any commitments are accepted by His Majesty's Government in relation to the acceptance of the Charter. I may add that I do not contemplate coming to the House for its views on the Charter for some considerable time until we have some idea of what other countries are going to do about it.

Mr. Maclay: I realise that the House will have an opportunity to discuss the Charter before it is approved, but would

it not be desirable that we should have some discussion reasonably soon and not only have the thing brought to us for final decision?

Mr. Wilson: I think the hon. Gentleman will remember that the Charter which has emerged from Havana is very similar to that which came from Geneva. I think our Debate on the Geneva Charter has probably covered most points, but that is in any case a point which -should be addressed to the Lord President of the Council.
Reference was made to Imperial Preference. I would remind the House that there were no serious inroads made at Geneva into Imperial Preference and nothing has happened since Geneva which in any way destroys or weakens our Imperial trading links. I agree that we should on all occasions study the speeches made in Imperial Parliaments, and I would ask the hon. Member to look at that made by Mr. Walter Nash—a very good friend of this country—and see what he said about the fact that neither his Government nor this Government have weakened the Imperial links, nor would they do so. The hon. Member indulged in some flights of fancy about discussions which he thought were going on at Number 10, Downing Street, about steel nationalisation. His Majesty's Government's intentions on this matter have been made perfectly clear and it is no good indulging in wishful thinking in this matter.
The only other point on which I wish to comment is his reference to brickfields in his constituency and men being turned off. He seemed to think this represented a serious lack of planning on the part of this Government. I ask the hon. Member to cast his memory back and ask himself whether men were not turned away from the brickfields in far easier circumstances than today—and that at a time when actual conditions for building were very much easier because timber was available, whereas today we cannot afford to increase house building.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The whole point was that actually some brickfields were opened expressly at the Government's request and at considerable expense to the owners, in order to produce bricks which a few months later were not necessary and could not be paid for.

Mr. Wilson: I do not want to go into an argument about the question of bricks, about which I had some experience when I was at the Ministry of Works and on which I spent a lot of time, but I hope the hon. Gentleman will not think that some troubles of his constituents are not at all related to private enterprise, when he knows—and if he does not, he should know—of the activities of brickmakers in other parts to protect themselves against the relatively efficient production of his area. That has led in the past, and would lead even under a different Government, to some private restrictions being placed upon brick production in that brickfield. I would remind him that the present difficulties in regard to construction are largely caused by shortages of either steel or of timber. Of course the important thing was that these men were turned off before when there was a glut of bricks, at a time when there was plenty of timber in the world, plenty of ships for bringing that timber in, and plenty of seamen tramping the streets of Liverpool who would have been only too glad of the opportunity of going to get it.
That is the note I would like to end on, because although, as has been made perfectly plain on all sides, our problems in reaching our present targets in 1948 are truly immense, and though they do represent an enormous job for our industries, our workpeople, our managements and our technicians, it is true at least that these are all problems and difficulties arising from having to pay for a second world war in one generation. In appealing to our people to go all out for increased production we can assure them that we are never again going back to a state of affairs where people will be turned off at a time when there are adequate resources available and a serious job of work to be done.

Mr. Hollis: I beg to ask leave to with draw the Amendment.

Amendment by leave, withdrawn.

Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

Supply accordingly considered in Committee.

[Mr. HUBERT BEAUMONT in the Chair]

CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1947–48

CLASS I

HOUSE OF COMMONS

Motion made and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £582,933, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1949, for the salaries and expenses of the House of Commons." [£265,0oo has been voted on account.]

Ordered, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—[Mr. Pearson.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — MINISTRY OF FOOD (FARM INSPECTIONS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Pearson.]

10.55 p.m.

Mr. Baldwin: First I should tender my apologies to the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary for having interfered with her birthday celebrations. I feel that I must wish the hon. Lady many happy returns of the day. I had intended to bring a bouquet, but I felt that if I had brought primroses they probably would not have been acceptable and if I had brought orchids it would have added still further to the hors. Lady's blandishments.
My object tonight is to call attention to the increasing growth and activities of Ministry of Food inspectors and snoopers in general. They are becoming much more active and the country is becoming thoroughly alarmed at what is going on. To illustrate the rapid increase in their activities, I would like to quote what the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said last year when he was challenged on the question of enforcement officers. He said that the number of cases where enforcement officers entered premises was very small indeed. He added:
Where it does occur an effort is made for the visit to take place by arrangement with the person concerned."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th May, 1947; Vol. 437, c. 1290.]


That is what was said 12 months ago, and instead of this kind of activity being unusual it has become the continuing practice of these inspectors. Some of the inspectors are most courteous and show their authority. Others are overbearing and act as agents provocateurs. I would quote the well known case of Tommy Tucker which took place at the East Sussex Quarter Sessions. There the enforcement officers not only called to see what trouble they could find, but actually encouraged the assistants who were in the shop to break the law. Having done that, they prosecuted for misdemeanour. That is repugnant to the English way of life. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary will not uphold that sort of work.
Complaints are most widespread. I remind the hon. Lady of a reply she gave to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Brigadier Thorp) when he asked the Minister of Food:
… if he is aware that his inspectors are visiting farms and asking the farmer's employees detailed questions about their farming business; and if he will issue instructions that that shall stop forthwith.
The hon. Lady's reply was:
I am aware of one visit of this kind. I am afraid that if the farmer himself is absent, such inquiries must be made so that the inspectors' inquiries may be made effectively and without undue waste of time."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st March, 1948; Vol. 448. c. 3.]
I would call attention to two cases in Northumberland. I cannot do better than quote from two letters which the hon. and gallant Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed received. The first states:
There is one aspect which is causing grave concern now that people are realising the full significance of these visits—that is the danger of political police and all that it leads to. Czechoslovakia, inland—where next? This was discussed at the Corn Exchange today. Mr. Robertson recounted to me his experience with the inspectors last week. They were most polite and civil. They produced their warrants without being asked but they asked numerous searching questions as to his farming activities.
Here is an important point:
They asked among other questions,' What do your neighbours do with their herds? '
Is it to be the practice for inspectors to come around the farms and ask the farmer what his neighbours are doing? Another letter from Northumberland said:

I am writing to you about what I call Strachey's Gestapo. The facts are that on Thursday 19th February, at about 11.30 three employees of the Ministry of Food entered on my farm. I was away from home in Newcastle. These people interviewed four of my employees and asked questions relating to my farming business. How many workers are there? How many acres does he farm? How many sheep has he got? How many cattle has he? How many hens has he?
All these reports are made by the farmer on the June return. To quote the letter again:
Now I consider that they had no right to ask my employees about my farm business, and it is nothing less than Gestapo methods. As you know, many other farmers have been visited and their premises searched before they even asked to see the farmers.
That is quite contrary to what the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said on r3th May last. He said then that it does not often occur and arrangements are made so that the farmers can be present when the inspectors pay these visits. Quite the opposite is happening.
In my own area of Worcestershire, one of my friends, one of the biggest market gardeners in the district, came across two inspectors. He asked them what their business was, and was told that they were making inquiries. He invited them to his office and they said that they did not want any information from the office, and that they were making inquiries on the farm. Having done that, they went to a neighbouring farm where the farmer was away although his wife was on the premises. They did not talk to her, but went on the premises and found a young lad and asked him all sorts of questions about the farm and the stock. That is the sort of life we are getting into. Another inspector in Kent saw some bees and asked the good woman what she did with the honey. Eventually they went into the house to see the bottles of honey. In Yorkshire there was a case where some self-suppliers committed a technical offence, and instead of slaughtering the pigs on the premises had them slaughtered at the butcher's. The inspectors had the pigs confiscated and when a lot of fuss was made the Minister of Food apologised.
Where are we getting to in this country with this increasing army of inspectors and snoopers? We arc on the slippery slope on which Germany found herself when Hitler started in the early '30's.


These are exactly the methods he took in Germany, and gradually the German people slipped into the police State. If we are not careful we shall accept that as the way of life and shall do exactly the same thing. I do not care whether it is a dictatorship of Right or Left, but we must keep the country free from it.
At present there are between seven and eight thousand inspectors, including 1,600. from the Ministry of Food, according to the figures of last August, going around the farms and shops. There are probably more by now. These men would be better employed productively instead of creating frustration and a feeling of hopelessness among people who do not know whether they are going to break the law or not. Practically no one is sure from day to day of the laws they may break. There are very few people who do not break some law or another. People are getting nervous. Some are afraid to employ a fresh assistant in a shop in case an inspector should come along and a prosecution follow. It is creating frustration all along the line.
There is, however, something worse than that. We are building up with these controls an increasing black market. We are teaching the people that the way of life is to try and get something under the counter, something to which they are not entitled. We are spending large sums of money educating the children, and when they get home from school they probably hear father and mother relating how they got something in the black market, or something they were not entitled to. What is the good of spending money on education when the children are being brought up in that way? We shall get to the stage when the passing-out examination will be to see not whether they are senior wranglers but whether they are senior wanglers. Then they will be fitted for their place in life.
It may be asked, "What is the remedy?" It is to set about doing away. with every control that can be dispensed with without creating hardship. It is sheer nonsense to say that there are not hundreds, even thousands, of controls that can be done away with without causing hardship. I will mention three in my own industry—the controls on eggs, poultry and rabbits. It may be said, "How many would the poor people be

able to buy if the controls were done away with?" My reply is, "How many can they buy now?" If the controls were abolished you would do away with the black market. The eggs would come into the shops, the people could buy them, even if it were at a high price. They could decide for themselves whether to spend their money on beer or tobacco or on eggs. Now they do not get the chance.
Take these so-called breakfast foods—"Ruskies," and all the rest. I do not know how many there are. I would do away with all the controls on them. There was plenty of wholesome oatmeal in Scotland after the last harvest. If those oats had been taken to the mills they could have been sent to the shops as oatmeal, and people could have bought that instead of giving fancy prices for things wrapped in cartons. Do away with all these controls and inspectors and the filling up of forms that are so unnecessary. The essence of democracy consists of a combination of law and liberty. Liberty is now being swamped under a deluge of statutory rules and orders. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to examine all these orders which come from her office, and see if some of them cannot be done away with; see if she cannot release us from these pettifogging little controls. As Lord Acton truly said: "All power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely."

11.8 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Edith Summerskill): The House should remember that the hon. Member is a farmer himself, and therefore perhaps finds it difficult to look at the activities of our enforcement officers objectively and not emotionally. I can quite understand that there may be a group of farmers who feel a little cross about having this inspection for the first time since controls were imposed, but I think the House will agree that it is rather significant that the hon. Member, who came here briefed to attack my Department, was able to produce only four or five complaints from the thousands of farmers who have had their farms inspected. I want to pay tribute to the hundreds of farmers who have willingly co-operated with our inspectors. I also can produce cuttings. I have one here from Leek, in which the members of the N.F.U. are reported to have agreed that the check-up


has been conducted on courteous lines and not calculated to give offence. That also is the kind of thing which reaches my Department, and the hon. Gentleman must not think that because a few farmers are feeling a little disgruntled and write to him, that reflects the feeling of the majority of farmers in the country. He quoted Captain Bomford.

Mr. Baldwin: Not Captain Bomford.

Dr. Summerskill: He did not mention Captain Bomford. But he did say a farmer met two of my inspectors in a lane—that was Captain Bomford. I have made inquiries about that case, and find that the inspectors met Captain Bomford outside his farm, talked to him and he told them that the records were about three miles away. The inspectors said, "Very well," and went off. They parted on the most friendly terms. I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman should come here and complain about the treatment meted out to Captain Bomford by my inspectors. I can assure him there is no substance in it at all.
He and other Members in this House who are farmers are probably a- little annoyed at what they consider is a concentrated drive on farmers in the country. I would accept that description. I ask the hon. Member to recall that after the cut in bacon and meat last year, allegations were made that there was widespread illicit slaughter of livestock and pigs. Perhaps he will remember the Adjournment some months ago when the hon. Member for West Salford (Mr. Royle), who is a butcher, used the strongest language and asked us what action we were taking to stop these malpractices. At that time we had no reliable evidence, and we decided to increase enforcement activities, and felt it necessary, in view of the fact that there might be an increased shortage of food, to adopt a system of priorities.
We decided that investigation of black market operations in meat, pork and bacon, including illicit slaughter of livestock, should be made a first priority. We also felt we should inquire into the improper operation of the self-supplier pig scheme and infringements of the orders affecting feeding stuffs. In order to do that, we had to extend our activities. Between Decem-

ber, 1947, and March, 1948, 10,922 farms were visited. I ask the hon. Member to remember that number. In that number there were 21 complaints from farmers to headquarters.
The hon. Member is probably interested in the Midlands Division, as both his constituency and his farm are there. 1,834 farms were visited in the Midlands and from that number we had two complaints. These two complaints were of the most trivial nature. One farmer complained that the inspector was not as polite as he might have been and that the printing of the warrant card carried by the inspector was not big enough to be seen without spectacles. I really must invite the hon. Member to consider that very carefully. As a reasonable Member of this House, he will surely agree that such complaints are utterly trivial. The other complaint was that the inspector was a little discourteous and he interviewed an employee. I will deal with that in a moment.
I want to remind the hon. Member that these inspections are being made, not to irritate a comparatively small number of farmers, but in order to protect the interests of the consumers. I am a little surprised that he comes here tonight with this complaint, because he and I have often crossed swords and I have found that when he presses a question, there is generally some substance in his argument. But I think he will agree that tonight, in putting the case for a few disgruntled farmers, he has forgotten the case which should be put for his. constituents—the ordinary consumer—whose interests are being safeguarded by my Department.
It has been stated that certain farmers have said that some notice should be given when we are about to visit a farm. Surely, if notice were given to a farmer, the whole purpose of the visit would be defeated. Suppose we gave notice to a restaurant at which we were anticipating finding some infringement of our regulations. Do hon. Members think we would find anything wrong by the time we reached the restaurant?

Mr. Baldwin: Can the hon. Lady say what the Financial Secretary to the Treasury meant when he said that when it does occur, an effort is made for a visit to take place by arrangement with the persons concerned?

Dr. Summerskill: We try. When the inspectors went to Captain Bomford's they did not insist on going into the farm. The hon. Member himself mentioned that the inspectors met the farmer, and when he said that the records were elsewhere they did not press the matter. It is true that the inspectors deal with the farmers' subordinates if the farmers do not happen to be there, but it will be recognised that time is of great importance on these visits. We have to cover a very wide area, and if the farmer is not there, there is nothing wrong if an inspector asks the farmer's wife. Of course, if there are suspicious circumstances, I can quite understand a farmer being annoyed; but for the most part farmers are responsible people and they welcome our visits.

Mr. Baldwin: Emotionally?

Dr. Summerskill: Not emotionally. This is exceptional. It must be because it is Primrose Day. These farmers are cooperative, and are only too happy that we should discuss the matter with their wives or with a senior employee. When the inspector decides that there is a prima facie case and action may have to be taken, nothing is done until a report is made to the farmer, and the farmer himself is invited to make observations. The hon. Member mentioned that the agricultural committees had certain returns and that if we wanted certain figures we need only refer to them; but there is a lag between the time when the figures are collated and given to the agricultural committees. It is necessary that we should keep up to date.
I want to come to the conduct and behaviour of the inspectors, because I agree that the very few complaints we have received concern the conduct of the inspectors.

Mr. Baldwin: Will the hon. Lady say that the National Farmers' Union has not made any complaint about the snooping going on?

Dr. Summerskill: Most of the complaints of which the hon. Member is speaking have been made by the National Farmers' Union. I am now telling the hon. Member of the complaints made to us direct by farmers. I want to take this opportunity of raising the question of the conduct and behaviour of our inspectors

because I am rather jealous of their reputation. These men, for the most part, have served in our Police Force, and the hon. Member will agree that the standard of our police is admired by every country in the world. These men are specially selected. Before they begin their operations, they are told that they must exercise the greatest tact and courtesy. I cannot believe that the behaviour of these men changes immediately they enter the farm gate. I want to pay a tribute to these men for the work they have done. The hon. Member will agree that they have entered many thousands of farms during the last few months with surprisingly little complaint. Some of them are brusque; but, after all, we cannot all have a "bedside manner." There have been one or two cases where there was a complaint about the men being a little impolite, but the hon. Member can rest assured that my Department is only too anxious that the farmers should be treated with the courtesy they deserve.
There was a point, and a very significant one, which he raised. He said that food had been seized where only a technical offence had been committed. I agree with him that there were two or three cases of that nature, but we have given instructions that where only a technical offence has been committed the food should not be seized. He may be interested to hear of the results of our operations during the last few months; 580 offences—prima facie offences where we might take action—have shown that this drive has been fully justified.

Mr. Baldwin: The hon. Lady says prima facie cases.

Dr. Summerskill: Well, we are continuing our investigations. We investigate further, of course, before a prosecution takes place. We are talking about the period between last December and March, and many prosecutions are pending. I am only telling the hon. Gentleman that these are the reports we have to handle. Apart from prosecutions and the penalty attaching to these offences, he must realise the importance of the preventive aspect. We think that having a number of enforcement officers operating with mobility and surprise has a very salutary effect, and I am quite certain that in those areas which have already been inspected we shall possibly find more eggs coming to the packing stations,


more pigs reaching the bacon factories, and that the millers will have an influx of grain to deal with. In fact, this has proved to be the case. We are looking into this matter now but it is quite clear to me that what the hon. Member and a few of his friends may find very distasteful is something which is in the interests of the community.

Lieut.-Colonel Corbett: Can the hon. Lady tell me how many inspec-

tors she has, the number of motor cars supplied to them, and the amount of petrol with which they are issued?

Dr. Summerskill: There are 751 inspectors. I should need notice before I could answer the other questions.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-four Minutes past Eleven o'Clock.